Greywater Application

Greywater Technology Testing Protocol
Clare Diaper, Melissa Toifl and Michael Storey

December 2008
Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Report series ISSN: 1835-095X

Australia is founding its future on science and innovation. Its national science agency, CSIRO, is a
powerhouse of ideas, technologies and skills.
CSIRO initiated the National Research Flagships to address Australias major research challenges and
opportunities. They apply large scale, long term, multidisciplinary science and aim for widespread
adoption of solutions. The Flagship Collaboration Fund supports the best and brightest researchers to
address these complex challenges through partnerships between CSIRO, universities, research agencies
and industry.
The work contained in this report is collaboration between CSIRO Land and Water and the Smart Water
Fund.
For more information about Water for a Healthy Country Flagship or the National Research Flagship
Initiative visit www.csiro.au/org/HealthyCountry.html
Commonwealth of Australia 2008 All rights reserved.
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be
reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth.
Citation: Diaper, C. Toifl, M and Storey, M (2008) Greywater Technology Testing Protocol. CSIRO: Water
for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship
Copyright and Disclaimer
2008 CSIRO To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication
covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written
permission of CSIRO.
Important Disclaimer:
CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on
scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be
incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made
on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent
permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for
any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other
compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any
information or material contained in it.
Cover Photograph:
From: iStockphoto.com
Description: A clothes washing machine with liquid detergent being added.
Copyright: Jennifer Morgan
Acknowledgements
The authors of this report would like to thank all other CSIRO team members who have
provided input into this project: Roger OHalloran, Grace Tjandraatmadja, Michelle Critchley and
Yesim Gozukara.
The project team would like to thank Smart Water Fund and the water companies represented
by this body: City West Water, South East Water, Yarra Valley Water and Melbourne Water
Corporation, for their financial support in this project.
Everwater, Sampford and Sons, and New Water are gratefully acknowledged for providing
technologies to test and the resources to commission them.
CSIRO would also like to thank the EPA (Environment Protection Authority Victoria) and DHS
(Department of Human Services) for their contributions to the development of this protocol,
Ecowise for information on field testing of greywater technologies and other manufacturers who
provided greywater quality data.
Greywater technology testing protocol
Page iii
Executive Summary
This report provides details of a proposed laboratory based greywater technology testing
protocol and details the recommended procedures, methods and analysis techniques for this
process. This is a draft methodology and should be viewed as such, its purpose being a
discussion document to be circulated to regulatory bodies, councils, system manufacturers and
other stakeholders for comment and discussion. The report includes a description of the
protocol as well as details of the processes that were followed during protocol development and
the rationale of decisions and recommendations.
The protocol was developed by testing three small scale greywater treatment systems (Table A
and (Diaper C. and Toifl M. 2006; Diaper C. et al. 2006; Diaper C. and Toifl M. 2007)) which
combined different chemical, physical and biological processes to achieve performance
requirements. The technologies were selected on the basis of these unit processes in order to
ensure the protocol was appropriate for the different process types.
Table A: Technologies tested during protocol development
Technology Process
type
Treatment process
Disinfection
process
Semi batch
Biological with suspended media
UV
Batch
Chemical flocculant dosing, UV and four stage

filtration
UV
Semi batch
Settling, biological with fixed media
Chemical (Cl/Br)
The testing was undertaken in a PC2 (Physical Containment Level 2) laboratory under
controlled conditions. The following basic equipment was required for testing:
Feed tank (1000 L capacity recommended)
Submersible pump for mixing greywater
Greywater feed pump (specifications dependent on technologies tested and laboratory

setup)
Pressure rated dosing pump for inoculum dosing
Online flow meter or rotameter (flow range dependent on technologies tested)
Effluent storage tanks to allow disinfection of treated greywater.
The technologies were fed with a synthetic greywater which mimicked an average combined
laundry and bathroom greywater from an Australian residential dwelling. The components of the
greywater included a range of market share household products, some laboratory grade
chemicals and secondary sewage effluent sourced from a local wastewater treatment plant
(Eastern Treatment Plant, Melbourne). The quality parameter ranges for suspended solids,
biological oxygen demand (BOD), temperature, pH, turbidity, sodium, zinc, total phosphorous
total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), conductivity, chemical oxygen demand (COD), total organic
carbon (TOC), total coliforms and E.coli were selected following review of Australian and
international literature and analysis of data collected from Australian case studies. Whilst
calcium and magnesium were analysed in the synthetic greywater, parameter ranges were not
specified as these will vary and is dependent on mains water quality. Aluminium was also
measured but has no specific parameter range as this will be highly dependent on the
household products used.
Page iv
Three stages of testing were proposed as follows:
Tracer study
Chemical testing
Microbiological testing.
The tracer study provided a profile of technology flow conditions and was used to develop flow
and dosing regimes for chemical and microbiological testing. The tracer used in the testing of
the three greywater technologies was sodium chloride, as simple monitoring of outlet
concentrations was possible and the concentrations used did not affect biological treatment.
The parameters selected for chemical testing were based on a literature review of components
of greywater and investigation of greywater components likely to have detrimental impacts on
soils, plant life and other water bodies. The water quality parameters analysed in the feed and
product streams during chemical testing were the same as those for the synthetic greywater
with the addition of nitrate and F.Enterococci, and the exception of temperature. The basic
micro-organism analysis was carried out during chemical testing as secondary effluent was
added to the synthetic greywater and the performance of the technology could be clarified prior
to dosing high micro-organism concentrations.
The purpose of the microbiological testing was to prove a log removal of bacterial, protozoan
and viral surrogates. The micro-organisms selected were in accordance with those suggested in
national water recycling guidelines (Environment Protection and Heritage Council et al. 2006).
During protocol development a helminth surrogate, latex fluorospheres, was trialled but analysis
techniques were time consuming and of limited accuracy, and the proof of log removal was
inconclusive. As helminth ova are unlikely to be prevalent in greywater in Australia it is
recommended this surrogate is rejected as a testing requirement.
The bacterial surrogates used were Escherichia coli (ATCC 25772) and Enterococcus faecalis
(ATCC 19433) as both are recommended strains for use with Colilert tests kits (IDEXX
Laboratories), the selected analysis technique. Inoculum concentrations of > 106 cfu/100mL
were required in order to prove a 7 log removal (minimum detection 100 cfu/100mL).
The viral surrogates selected were the bacteriophages MS-2 and X174, a somatic and an fspecific RNA phage respectively. Although the phages are similar in size (24 and 27 nm
respectively), they have different isoelectric points (X174 pI = 6.6 and MS-2 pI = 3.9) (Dowd
S.E. et al. 1998; Dowd et al. 1998). The reason for basing selection on charge rather than size
was that, for the greywater treatment technologies currently on the market in Australia, removal
at the molecular level will be predominantly influenced by charge rather than size. Product water
samples were assayed for MS2 and X174 phage, either in-house or by a NATA accredited
laboratory, using the ISO standard methods for MS-2 (International Standard Organisation
1995) and X174 (International Standard Organisation 2000). The concentrations of each
phage had to be at least 106 so that log 7 removal could be proven by any system tested.
Clostridium perfringens was selected as the surrogate for Cryptosporidium oocysts. The spores
were prepared from frozen stocks obtained from the culture collection held by the University of
NSW and product samples were analysed using the method described in AS/NZS 4276.17.1
(2000) (Australian Standard 2000). One litre sample volumes were used, as previous work had
indicated that the product samples collected required concentration, rather than the dilution,
described in the standard method. Concentrations of spores in the inoculum were in the range
of 105 to 106 spores/100mL so that 7 log removal could be proven.
Technologies are challenged with repeated high feed concentrations of the different microorganism surrogates, the number of repetitions and product sample analysis dependent on the
technology and the results of the tracer study. Collection of proportional volume feed and
product samples, rather than spot samples, is recommended.
The three stages of testing outlined in the protocol provided:
Hydraulic integrity testing of the technology
Page v
A check of performance in removal of greywater components that are harmful to the

environment
Proof of performance of a technology in the removal of a range of surrogate microorganisms
Some assessment of operational issues.
As such, the protocol is appropriate for testing technologies for High Exposure Risk end uses,
such as residential dual reticulation, multi-unit dwellings and unrestricted access urban
irrigation, as outlined in the National Water Recycling Guidelines (Environment Protection and
Heritage Council et al. 2006)
Page vi
Table of Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1. Rationale............................................................................................................ 2
2. Experimental set up.......................................................................................... 5
System requirements............................................................................................................ 5
3.
Synthetic greywater.......................................................................................... 7
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
4.
5.
Tracer study .................................................................................................... 11

Chemical testing ............................................................................................. 13
5.1.
5.2.
6.
Method .................................................................................................................... 13
Results .................................................................................................................... 14
Microbiological testing................................................................................... 16
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
6.5.
7.
8.
9.
Recipe....................................................................................................................... 7
Procedure ................................................................................................................. 7
Quality....................................................................................................................... 9
Bacterial dosing method ......................................................................................... 16

Virus surrogate dosing method............................................................................... 17
Protozoa surrogate dosing method ........................................................................ 18
Helminth surrogate dosing method......................................................................... 18
Micro-organism dosing results................................................................................ 18
Reporting......................................................................................................... 20
Discussion and recommendations ............................................................... 21
Future work ..................................................................................................... 23
Appendix 1 Synthetic greywater components ................................................. 25

Appendix 2 Estimation of amount of products used....................................... 29
Appendix 3 Properties of Unimin clay .............................................................. 30
Appendix 4 Real greywater quality ................................................................... 31
Appendix 5 Modifications to synthetic greywater recipe................................ 33
Appendix 6 Changes in parameter ranges for large scale batches using
different synthetic greywater formulations ......................................................... 34
References.............................................................................................................. 35
TABLES
Table 1: Summary of technologies tested during protocol development ......................................3
Table 2: Final synthetic greywater recipe (formulation 4) .............................................................8
Table 3: Parameter ranges and quality of synthetic greywater ...................................................10
Table 4: NATA laboratory results of chemical and bacterial testing ...........................................14
Table 5: Example results of micro-organism log removal for Technology C...............................19
Table 6: Example of HAZOP assessment method .....................................................................23
Table 7: Synthetic greywater parameter ranges compared to Australian greywater data ..........31
Table 8: Australian greywater quality data..................................................................................32
Page vii
FIGURES
Figure 1: Technologies tested during protocol development (L to R, Technology A, B and C) ....6
Figure 2: Schematic of the system layout .....................................................................................6
Figure 3: Tracer study outlet Electrical conductivity Technology A..........................................12
Figure 4: Tracer study outlet Electrical conductivity Technology C .........................................12
Page viii
Introduction
The first section of this report introduces the background to the project and the reasons for
and the requirements of the greywater testing protocol development in the Rationale (Section
1). The experimental set up is then described, providing details of equipment and facilities
used in the testing of three greywater treatment technologies (Section 2).
The synthetic greywater recipe is then described, with details of component contributions,
procedures for the generation of synthetic greywater and the results of water quality analysis
of large scale batches of greywater (Section 3).
The next three sections describe the testing protocol and its components. The testing
protocol comprised of three analytic processes:
Tracer study
Chemical testing
Microbiological testing.
Section 4 describes the tracer study testing that was required for each technology prior to
starting performance testing. The tracer study was required in order to understand the flow
profiles of the technology being testing and to develop the subsequent chemical and
microbiological testing regimes.
The chemical testing requirements are then described (Section 5), followed by experimental
details of the microbiological dosing with Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis, MS2
and X174 coliphages and protozoa surrogates (Section 6).
Section 7 outlines possible reporting requirements for the testing of greywater systems,
developed from the summary reports of the three technologies tested during the
development of the protocol.
Section 8 provides recommendations for the future development of the protocol to a national
standard. Section 9 describes a proposed desk-based risk assessment to be carried out in
conjunction with the laboratory based testing which will provide a more complete assessment
of technologies under a range of operating conditions.
1. Rationale
The aim of this project was to develop a practical, robust and reproducible method for testing
greywater treatment technologies to Australian recycled water standards, proving log
removal of bacteria, virus, protozoa and helminth surrogates. There is no standard national
testing method for greywater technologies in Australia and the research undertaken aids in
the development of appropriate protocols and procedures for different scales of treatment
and end uses of greywater. The processes used are in line with the risk assessment
approach of the National Water Recycling Guidelines (Environment Protection and Heritage
Council et al. 2006). The work was funded by Smart Water Fund and CSIRO Water for a
Healthy Country Flagship.
There is currently much focus, both nationally and internationally, on water saving measures,
better management of water supplies and implementation of policies to reduce wastewater
discharges to receiving waters. The use of alternative source waters, such as greywater, is
being investigated and there are a wide range of technologies commercially available for
greywater treatment. In Australia, numerous strategies that include greywater treatment
systems for water recycling in the home are being supported by government agencies
(Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004; New South
Wales Government 2006). This has led to an increased interest in developing new greywater
recycling technologies.
Despite the perceived innocuous nature of greywater, it can contain enteric bacteria, viruses
and intestinal parasites which may be pathogenic (Casanova et al. 2001; Birks and Hills
2007; Winward et al. 2007). Previous studies have found increased risks to human health
from viral, but not bacterial, pathogens when using greywater for accidental direct contact,
sportsfield irrigation and groundwater recharge with greywater (Ottoson and Stenstroem
2003). However, before widespread adoption of domestic greywater systems is approved, it
is essential that thorough, robust and reproducible testing procedures are developed in order
to ensure that there is no increase in human health risk.
In Australia, there are no national guidelines for testing of household greywater systems, and
different states have different protocols and procedures for testing. At the single household
scale there are prescriptive standards for technology accreditation (New South Wales Health
Department 2005). It is often recommended that the accreditation be used in conjunction with
guidance documents for greywater use in single household residential premises (New South
Wales Department of Energy Utilities and Sustainability 2007). The NSW single household
domestic greywater accreditation is based on a 26 week field monitoring period of greywater
treatment systems in a household of eight to ten people (or 720 to 900 L/day greywater flow)
and includes thermotolerant coliform (TC), Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5), suspended
solids (SS), free chlorine, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total nitrogen (TN) and total
phosphorus (TP) analysis. However, there is currently no recommended testing for
pathogenic micro-organisms.
For multi-dwelling premises, guidance (New South Water Health 2005) is in the form of a
framework for the assessment of recycled water schemes, and is not prescriptive in testing
requirements (New South Wales Department of Water and Energy 2007). The NSW
guideline recommends validation, verification and operational monitoring requirements based
on the exposure risk level of the end use of the recycled water. Monitoring is recommended
for the highest exposure risk level (for internal use and unrestricted irrigation) of BOD5; pH;
SS; turbidity; free chlorine (or other disinfection system efficiency); and the micro-organisms
E.coli, coliphages and Clostridia.
The monitoring programs suggested for both single residential and multi-dwelling premises
do not necessarily validate the performance of the technology for pathogen removal. The
recommended field testing will not necessarily challenge the technology with high
concentrations of pathogenic micro-organisms in the feed stream, therefore maximum log
removal cannot be assessed.
In order to address this potential issue of system performance validation and to enable a
wide range of likely conditions to be assessed, the approach taken in this study was to use a
laboratory based testing process rather than field tests, to validate the performance of
greywater treatment technologies. Three different greywater treatment technologies were
used in the development of the protocol. Technologies were selected based on their method
of processing: one semi-batch biological and UV disinfection process, a batch chemical and
physical separation process with UV disinfection and a semi-batch biological process with
chemical disinfection (Table 1). This range of process types allowed investigation of the
appropriateness of selected surrogate micro-organisms and the suitability of the protocol to
different process types.
Table 1: Summary of technologies tested during protocol development
Technology Process
type
Treatment process
Disinfection
process
Maximum Flow
rate (L/day)
Semi
batch
Biological with suspended

media
UV
600
Batch
Chemical flocculant dosing,

UV and four stage filtration
UV
1000
Semi
batch
Settling, biological with fixed

media
Chemical
(Cl/Br)
300
Section 3 outlines the development of a synthetic greywater, which contains a variety of

personal hygiene and household products, secondary treated effluent and clay. The
formulation was based on an assessment of the market share of household products used in
Australia (IbisWorld 2005), literature values of per capita water usage for different appliances
and a review of real greywater quality in Australia (Appendix 4). Advantages of a synthetic
formulation are that quality is consistent, parameters can be adjusted and controlled easily
and comparative research assessment is possible. Real greywater has been used for
research purposes in previous studies (Birks R. et al. 2004; Jefferson et al. 2004), but it is
variable in quality and may be impractical to collect and store, limiting the feasibility of the
assessment process. A further benefit of using synthetic greywater is that methods are easily
repeatable by others, which achieves one of the objectives of the protocol. A synthetic
greywater will allow other users to test systems with a standard feed quality. A disadvantage
of synthetic greywater is that it will not mimic the variability in quality observed in real
greywater. A possible approach for addressing this issue is suggested in Section 9, which
outlines a risk assessment approach for assessing the impact of changes in greywater flows
or quality.
The quality parameter ranges of the synthetic greywater used in this study were selected to
mimic the quality of real greywater. Initially, quality data collated from international literature
was used as the basis for parameter ranges. This was updated with current data collated on
Australian greywater in order to ensure the quality parameters correlated to an average
Australian residential greywater quality.
Surrogate micro-organisms for bacterial, viral, protozoan and helminth pathogens were used
to assess greywater technology performance and were chosen in consultation with the
Victorian EPA, DHS and Smart Water Fund. The use of surrogate organisms had the
advantage of reduced Occupational Health and Safety requirements compared with the use
of viable pathogens. This means testing facilities did not have to comply with high levels of
microbiological containment and allowed simpler, more easily transferable testing methods to
be developed. Development of a robust and reproducible testing protocol will depend on the
ease of use and quantification of the microbial species and surrogates used. Surrogates
have been used in previous studies with greywater (Rose et al. 1991; Ottoson and
Stenstroem 2003).
The test method was developed as a three-stage process: tracer study testing, chemical
testing and microbiological testing. The tracer study allowed assessment of the hydraulic
integrity of the technology and provided the basis for flow, inoculum dosing and sample
collection frequency requirements of the chemical or microbiological testing. The chemical
testing included a range of physical, chemical and microbiological parameters which
provided an indication of potential environmental and human health risks, as well as an
assessment of system operational performance. The microbiological testing was designed to
prove compliance with the log removal requirements for the selected surrogates
recommended in recycled water guidelines (Environment Protection and Heritage Council et
al. 2006). This three-stage approach allowed verification of system performance prior to the
more complex and costly microbiological testing.
2. Experimental set up
System requirements
The basic testing system components were (Figure 2):
Physical Containment Level 2 (PC2) laboratory
Feed tank
Submersible pump for mixing
Feed pump (specifications dependent on technologies tested and laboratory setup)
Pressure rated dosing pump
Online flow meter (flow range dependent on technologies tested)
Effluent storage tanks.
Online monitoring of pH, conductivity and turbidity were suggested in order to allow
continuous monitoring of synthetic greywater feed. However, spot samples could be taken
and analysed to ensure consistency in feed quality.
The micro-organisms used for testing the greywater technologies are listed as Class 2 in the
AS/NZ Standard 2243.3:2002, Safety in laboratories - Microbiological aspects and
containment facilities and a PC2 (Physical Containment Level 2) facility was required for the
testing process.
For the development of the synthetic greywater and testing of three greywater treatment
technologies used to develop and validate the protocol, a 1000 L custom built feed tank was
used. A tank of this volume was required so large scale batches of the greywater could be
produced and tested. A submersible pump (a Grundfos AP12 40 04A1V with vortex impellor
was used in this study) in the feed tank was used to continually mix the synthetic greywater
for a minimum nine hour period prior to use. A T-piece pipe was connected to the outlet of
the pump in order to ensure flows were tangential to the walls of the tank to aid in surface
scouring and reduce foam generation. Mixing of the greywater prior to use increased the
temperature of the greywater and lowered the pH to the required parameter range (Table 3,
Section 3.3)
The flow of the greywater feed to the technology was monitored using a rotameter or an
online mag-flow meter (a Turbo KP-G polypropylene lined meter was used in this study).
Flows were adjusted using two valves and a recycling loop back to the feed tanks. The feed
pump used in this study was a Davey M3061-0 with Torrium priming and a maximum flow of
5000 l/hr and 69 m maximum head. Volumes of synthetic greywater fed to the technology
during testing were monitored via a simple level measurement of the feed tank and
crosschecked with the rotameter or flowmeter. Temperature, pH, conductivity and turbidity
were monitored online prior to a sampling point, installed between the feed tank and the
technology.
The three technologies (Figure 1) were installed by manufacturers and distributors and were
tested as installed. Any operational or maintenance issues during the testing were addressed
by the manufacturer.
Figure 1: Technologies tested during protocol development (L to R, A, B and C)
Product samples were taken as spot samples or as a proportion of the total outlet flow,
depending on the technology. A peristaltic pump was used for taking the proportional
samples. This is the recommended method for sample collection, providing details of outlet
flow are available and outlet flows are relatively constant.
One technology tested had a final product storage tank as an integral component of the
technology (Figure 1, Technology A). (It is recommended that product samples are taken
prior to any final storage of treated greywater in order to test technology performance, rather
than the effect of storage, on treated greywater.)
Clay,
effluent and
microorganism
dosing point
using dosing
pump
Mixing tank
(1000 L)
Online
monitoring of
pH, conductivity,
temperature
Feed
pump
Sampling
point
Submersible
mixing pump
Rotameter
or flow
meter
Technology to
be tested or
holding tank
Figure 2: Schematic of the system layout
3. Synthetic greywater
The synthetic greywater formulation was a modified version of a recipe developed and used
for testing greywater systems in the UK (Brown R. and Palmer A. 2002). The composition of
greywater has been found to vary significantly between countries and regions (Siegrist R.L.
et al. 1976; Brandes 1978; Walpole and Hartley 1993; Eriksson et al. 2002). There are a
number of reasons for this variability: use of different household products (and the different
composition of products); varying tap water qualities and water usages; different householder
behaviours; and the inclusion or exclusion of various waste streams in the greywater, laundry
only, bathroom only or laundry and bathroom combined. These factors suggest that careful
consideration needs to be given before using a formulation that has been developed in
another country or region.
There were a number of requirements for synthetic greywater formulation for technology
testing:
Mimic real greywater in composition
Provide a matrix that allows micro-organism and pathogen survival
Contain compounds in detectable concentrations identified as having detrimental

environmental impacts in real greywater
Be reproducible and provide consistent quality between batches and between users.
3.1. Recipe
To meet the above requirements the formulation developed contained products expected to
be found in average Australian households, including personal care products and detergents
and additional laboratory chemicals in order to achieve the concentration ranges of various
parameters as required. Market share products were used where data was available
(Appendix 1 Synthetic greywater components). Estimations of amount of products used
were made and combined with average water usage data in order to calculate the amount of
product to be used in the recipe (Appendix 2).
3.2. Procedure
To prepare the synthetic greywater all ingredients, except the clay and secondary effluent,
were weighed and mixed with 500 mL warm water in a blender at low speed for one minute.
The quantities given in the table below are for 100 L of greywater. The feed tank was filled
with the required amount of tap water and the concentrated ingredient mixture added. A
submersible pump in the feed tank was used to mix the greywater overnight or for at least
nine hours. Mixing the greywater for at least nine hours was found to decrease the pH into
the correct range (Table 2) and also brought the temperature of the greywater into the
desired range of 25-35C. The outlet of the pump in the feed tank required some modification
to direct the outlet towards the feed tank walls to reduce entrainment of air and foaming in
the feed tank.
Table 2: Final synthetic greywater recipe (Formulation 4)

Ingredient
Product used
Amount in 100L (g)

unless otherwise stated
Sunscreen
1.5
UV TripleGuard
Moisturiser
Dove
Toothpaste
3.25
Colgate Maximum Cavity

Protection (regular)
Deodorant
Mum
Na2SO4
3.5
Analytical grade
NaHCO3
2.5
Analytical grade
Na2PO4
3.9
Analytical grade
Clay (Unimin)1
Industrial grade
Vegetable Oil
0.7
Coles Own brand
Shampoo/hand wash
72
Palmolive
Laundry
15
Omo High Performance/

Omomatic concentrate
Boric acid2
0.14
Analytical grade
Lactic acid
2.8
Analytical grade
Secondary effluent3
2L
Eastern Treatment Plant at

Carrum (from secondary clarifier)
OR
The properties of the Unimin clay are given in Appendix 3
Addition dependent on boron detection limit
Secondary effluent was stored (< 4C) and used within 2 weeks of collection
The clay and secondary effluent were mixed together and stirred using a magnetic stirrer for
at least 15 mins prior to and during feed of the greywater technology. The clay and
secondary effluent mixture was added inline via a peristaltic pump, as adding clay to the
feed tank increased adhesion of clay to the feed tanks walls and fitting. Any micro-organism
inocula (bacteria, virus, protozoa and helminth surrogates) used for testing the greywater
technologies were also added to the effluent and clay prior to dosing. Secondary effluent was
allowed to reach room temperature prior to dosing or addition of microbial inocula in order to
reduce the potential for damage to the micro-organisms due to a rapid change in
temperature.
This mix of freely suspended micro-organisms and micro-organisms associated with
particulate material provided an assumed worst case scenario for testing; the microorganisms not bound to particulate being the smallest and more likely to pass through
filtration process, the bound micro-organisms being shielded from chemical and physical
disinfection process if they are not removed by filtration. Further analysis of the ratio of
micro-organism to clay concentrations is required in order to ensure a mix of suspended and

particulate associated micro-organisms.
Subsequent review of published literature suggests that native micro-organism populations
can have a significant influence on the survival of introduced micro-organisms (Walter et al.
1995). This needs further clarification but it is recommended that when dosing microorganism inocula, secondary effluent is not added to the synthetic greywater.
3.3. Quality
Table 3 shows the expected water quality parameter ranges for the synthetic greywater
produced using the recipe given in Table 2. The target parameter ranges (Table 3) used for
the synthetic greywater formulation were based primarily on Australian greywater quality
data. Initially data from the Smart Water Fund Testing Protocol for proposed technologies
treating greywater was used to set parameter ranges (source data from (Jeppesen 1996))
but there were limitations in using this data, primarily that it was over ten years old. Thus, the
data sources were extended to other current Australian data collected from system
technology manufacturers and Ecowise (Appendix 4) and international literature (Eriksson et
al. 2002). Following this review, the median of the parameters ranges for BOD, turbidity,
sodium and conductivity were reduced. Further investigation of total-N and total-P ranges is
required as the median and averages for the current data analysed were significantly
different from the initial parameter ranges suggested by Smart Water Fund (see Appendix 4).
The results of the analysis of initial large scale batch testing showed that several parameters
were outside of the desired range. Several new ingredients were added and the quantities of
some of the existing ingredients in the recipe were adjusted on subsequent batches until the
results from the final large scale batch testing showed that the chemical and physical
parameters were all within the expected range (Table 3). The adjustments to the recipe are
shown in Appendix 5 and the results of the corresponding large scale batches are shown in
Appendix 6. The chemical components of the recipe were found to be reproducible between
batches, with the results in Table 3 showing the average and standard deviation for the final
formulation (presented in Table 2). Results are an average of five batches for the
formulation.
The microbiological parameters were more difficult to adjust and were largely dependent on
the concentration of micro-organisms present in the secondary treated effluent, which can
vary. Whilst the E.coli concentrations were in the desired range, the total coliform
concentration was 103 times the desired range. Coliforms are abundant in the environment
and are commonly found in the faeces of warm blooded animals, in aquatic environments, in
soil and on vegetation. This abundance of coliforms in the environment may account for the
higher than expected levels of total coliforms in the synthetic greywater.
Table 3: Parameter ranges and quality of synthetic greywater

Original range
(Jeppesen
1996)
Updated range
Appendix 3 (mg/L
unless otherwise stated)
Results from final

large scale batch
(Formulation 4)
Suspended solids
60 - 80
60 - 80
59.0 3.3
BOD
150 - 200
130 - 180
146.7 5.0
Temperature
20 - 30C
25 - 35C
pH
6.5 8.0
6.5 8.0
7.4 0.1
Turbidity
60 80 NTU
50 70 NTU
52.1 4.6
Boron
0.1 0.5
0.1 0.5
Sodium
80 130
50 90
65.3 1.0
Calcium
7.6 0.3
Magnesium
1.3 0.1
Aluminium
Zinc
0.1 0.5
0.1 0.5
Total phosphorous-P
10 20
10 20
17.8 0.4
Total Kjeldahl nitrogenN
3.0 5.0
3.0 5.0
3.0 0.1
Parameter
1.6 0.4
Nitrate
<0.2
Nitrite
<0.003
Conductivity (S/cm)
450 - 550
300 - 400
322.2 6.7
COD
250 - 400
250 - 400
276.7 21.0
TOC
50 - 150
50 - 150
62.6 12.7
Total coliforms
(cfu/100mL)
10 10
E.coli (cfu/100mL)
101 - 102
F.Enterococci
(cfu/100mL)
106 107
102 103
102 103
10 10
1-100
10
4. Tracer study
A tracer study was used to determine the profile of flow for each technology prior to
commencing chemical and microbiological testing. The choice of tracer was discussed with
the technology manufacturers prior to commencing the tracer studies to ensure that it would
not interfere with the process of the technology or damage any media or bacterial growth on
any media utilised. The tracer selected for the three technologies tested during the
development of the protocol was sodium chloride.
Initially, the sampling and run-time procedures of the testing protocol were to be based on
the theoretical hydraulic retention time (HRT), S (where S= VT/Q, and VT is the total volume
of greywater storage within a technology and Q is the rate of feed to the technology).
However, the different types of treatment technology to be tested used numerous filtration
and media types, which made estimation of greywater storage volume difficult and so the
tracer study technique was utilised.
The tracer studies were carried out by adding a salt dose to the first batch of water fed to the
technology and then feeding further batches of clean water until the conductivity at the outlet
of technology returned to background levels. The sodium chloride concentrations used did
not affect the treatment processes and conductivity probes were used to continuously
monitor and record the effluent during the tracer study. Other tracers could be used, such as
Rhodamine B, if there were concerns regarding the effects on the process.
The results of two technology tracer studies are presented in order to demonstrate the use of
the method in developing sampling and run time protocols. Figure 3 shows tracer study
testing results from Technology A, the semi-batch process greywater treatment technology,
to which one 150 L batch of high salt content feed was added. The technology was then fed
with ten subsequent 150 L batches of potable water per day over a period of three days. The
technology maximum daily flow rate was stated as 600 L/day (N.B. The constant conductivity
readings observed between the first and second and the second and third days are due to
the technology being shut down overnight.
The results show conductivity breakthrough observed at outlet at ~ 6 hours, during the
second feed batch of potable water to the technology. The maximum concentration at the
outlet was observed after 9.5 hours, or an additional batch time. This information was then
used to determine the feed inoculum and product sample collection to be used when testing
the performance of the technology in the removal of micro-organisms. From examining the
tracer study outlet profile the proposed microorganism test method for this first technology
was:
Feed high inoculum dose until the tracer study peak product concentration is achieved
i.e. feed high inoculum dose for three 150 L batches
Continue to analyse product samples until the tracer study concentration returns to
background levels i.e. collect product samples for a minimum of ten 150 L greywater
batches
Operating the testing in this manner aids in proof of log removal during testing and ensures
that all potentially contaminated product is analysed. Further statistical analysis of the
number of samples and replicates is required to ensure the testing regime demonstrates log
removal.
The results of a salt tracer study for Technology C, operating on a batch cycle, is shown in
Figure 4. The design of this technology was such that there was a small residual storage at
the end of processing, therefore the conductivity does not return to zero after the first batch.
After three consecutive salt-free feeds, the conductivity of product returns to background
levels.
11
1200
Unit on
standby
overnight
Feed 3
Conductivity (S/cm)
1000
Feed 4
800
Feed 6
Feed 5
600
400
Feed 7
Unit on
standby
overnight
Feed 1
Feed 10
Feed 11
Feed 12
200
Feed 8
Feed 9
Feed 2
0
0.00
12.00
24.00
36.00
48.00
60.00
Time (hours)
Figure 3: Tracer study outlet Electrical conductivity Technology A
1400
Electrical Conductivity (S/cm)
1200
Feed 1 - 100
Feed 2 - 100
Feed 3 - 100
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
Time (hours)
Figure 4: Tracer study outlet Electrical conductivity Technology C
When testing this system for removal of micro-organisms, inoculum was dosed for three feed
cycles and product was collected for a total of six feed cycles (twice the number observed for
the tracer study outlet concentration to return to background levels). This was done to ensure
any micro-organisms that may be entrained in the technology media would be detected and
was a different rationale to that used for the first technology.
12
However, although knowledge of the entrainment of micro-organisms provides insight into

the mechanisms of removal, it is not necessarily required to prove the performance of the
technology in terms of log removal of micro-organisms. Thus, the recommendation for the
protocol based on the results of tracer study is to feed high inoculum dose AND continue to
analyse product samples until the tracer study concentration returns to background levels, as
was the rationale used for Technology A.
5. Chemical testing
5.1 Method
Chemical components analysed for all of the technologies tested are shown in Table 4. The
parameters were selected based on a literature review of components of greywater and
investigation of greywater components likely to have detrimental impacts on soils, plant life
and other water bodies (Jeppesen 1996). The soil type to which the greywater is applied will
have an effect on the impacts of different chemical constituents. In general, clayey soils are
more affected by high salinity, sodicity and metals, and there is the possibility of
eutrophication of surface waters. On the other hand, in sandy soils all these parameters are
more likely to affect the groundwater.
Analysis of suspended solids was carried out as part of the chemical testing for each
technology as it provided an indication of the propensity of the treated greywater to cause
physical blockage of soil pores or blockage of irrigation systems. Turbidity was also
measured, as this is an easy way to measure indicators of colloidal and suspended residual
material, and provides a quick check of technology performance.
The electrical conductivity was measured as a surrogate measure for total dissolved solids,
which provides a measure of the dissolved salt content or salinity. Salinity will effect both
plant growth and soil structure. pH can also impact plant growth and soil structure and also
provides an easy check that a technology is operating correctly.
The total organic carbon (TOC), chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biological oxygen
demand (BOD5) were included as they provide a good surrogate measurement of biologically
degradable, organic and non biologically degradable components.
Total phosphorous and total nitrogen were analysed during testing as these parameters
provide a measure of the nutrient content of the treated water. Both nitrogen and
phosphorous are required for plant growth but can cause detrimental effects to both plants
and open water bodies if present in excessive quantities. In addition, both parameters
provide an indication of the propensity for biological regrowth in the treated water. Nitrate
was also measured as this provides an indication of technology performance. The
measurement of calcium and magnesium in conjunction with nitrogen and phosphorous will
give an indication of the potential benefits of greywater use to plant growth.
Testing for calcium, magnesium and sodium was undertaken in order to obtain a value for
sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), an indicator used to assess the impacts of treated water on
soil infiltration. Zinc was also included as levels approaching or above the guideline values
for irrigation have been found in greywater (Christova-Boal, 1996; Hypes, 1974). Aluminium
is often present in personal care products so was also included in the testing.
Total coliforms, E.coli and F.Enterococci, were also monitored during chemical testing, as
secondary effluent was added to the feed. This gave a preliminary indication of technology
performance for bacteria removal and ensured the technology was operating correctly.
13
Chlorine and bromine residual analysis was undertaken in-house where necessary.
Transport times to the external laboratory made NATA testing of chlorine and bromine
impracticable. Results are not reported here as they are not NATA accredited, but the
inclusion of these parameters for analysis when the tested technology utilises chemical
disinfection, is recommended.
5.2 Results
Testing for chemical and physical parameters was carried out for each technology on the
feed and product water and included suspended solids, biological oxygen demand (BOD),
conductivity, pH and turbidity (see Table 4 for full list). The samples were analysed by a
NATA accredited laboratory. The pH, conductivity, temperature and turbidity of the greywater
feed were also monitored throughout all trials using on-line probes. Boron was included in
initial analysis as it may be present in laundry detergents and is known to have acute toxicity
to plants. Boron concentrations found in greywater (Friedler 2004) are often above the
recommended maximum value for irrigation waters (Environmental Protection Authority
Victoria 1991). However, the boron analysis method selected by the laboratory employed to
carry out the sample analysis was not particularly sensitive and was not able to detect levels
below 1.2 ppm. As the levels of boron in the greywater were below this limit they were not
detected and therefore results for boron are not available.
Table 4: NATA laboratory results of chemical and bacterial testing
Parameter
Units
Average product
(mg/L)
<5
Max
product
13
% Removal
(mg/L)
Average feed
(mg/L)
105.0
BOD
Suspended Solids
(mg/L)
67.0
3.2
95
COD
(mg/L)
238
104
190
56
TKN
(mg/L)
5.2
5.51
11
Nitrate
(mg/L)
0.2
0.43
Total P
(mg/L)
16.9
16.6
18
TOC
(mg/L)
43
29
50
33
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
324
339
350
7.1
6.7
6.8
pH
>95
Turbidity
(NTU)
46.1
10.7
18
77
Total coliforms
(cfu/100mL)
>2419.6
E.coli
(cfu/100mL)
67
F.Enterococci
(cfu/100mL)
850
Calcium
(mg/L)
7.4
6.82
7.9
Magnesium
(mg/L)
1.4
1.5
1.7
Sodium
(mg/L)
64
67
68
Zinc
(mg/L)
0.02
0.07
0.14
Aluminium
(mg/L)
1.5
0.48
1.4
57
*increase observed
14
The results presented in Table 4 are for the semi-batch Technology C, a biological process
with fixed media and chemical disinfection. Results show average feed and product
concentrations and the maximum observed value in all product samples. The technology
removed a high percentage of BOD and SS and all bacterial sampling found no detectable
micro-organisms in the product sample. Full details of the results for the three technologies
tested can be found in the Technology Testing Reports (Diaper and Toifl 2006; Diaper et al.
2006; Diaper and Toifl 2007). Statistical analysis of the results requires further discussion.
15
6 Microbiological testing
During the microbiological testing of each technology, random samples of product water
were analysed in house for pH and turbidity to provide a quick check of technology
performance. Should these parameters be outside the expected range, further chemical
testing is recommended in order to assess whether the technology is operating correctly.
Should the chemical analysis prove the technology is not operating correctly, it is
recommended that microbiological testing is suspended.
6.1 Bacterial dosing method

Escherichia coli (ATCC 25772) and Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC 19433) preparation
and detection
The surrogate strain selected for Escherichia coli was ATCC 25922 as it gave the most
consistent results and is a recommended strain for use with Colilert tests kits (manufacturer).
The surrogate chosen for Faecal Enterococci was Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 19433 as it is
also a strain listed by IDEXX Laboratories as proven to work with the Enterolert test.
These IDEXX Laboratories recommended strains are both prescribed as micro-organisms
requiring PC2 facilities (Australian Standard 2002). Prior to final selection of bacterial
surrogates, a number of other PC1 organisms were trialled which, if successful, would
reduce the physical containment requirements for any testing facility for greywater treatment
technologies. Strains E Coli K12 and Enterococcus hirae were both trialled but these were
found to give poor and inaccurate results with the Colilert and Enterolert test kits. For
example, Enterococcus hirae did not fluoresce clearly and determination of positive results
was difficult given that the greywater can also produce slight background fluorescence due to
components in washing powder and soaps.
The Escherichia coli strain ATCC 25922 was cultured using commercially available BioBalls.
Two BioBalls, each containing a known quantity of micro-organisms, were spread onto
tryptone soya agar plates (following manufacturers instructions) and incubated for 12-24
hours until the colonies had grown to a size where they could be easily removed. All agar
plates used during microbiological testing were made according to the instructions supplied
with the media. Individual colonies were then scraped from the two plates and spread onto
new tryptone soya agar plates. The plates were then incubated for 24 hours prior to
harvesting the cells using 5 mL of Ringers solution and a sterile loop. The Ringers
solution and micro-organisms were then transferred aseptically from the plate into a clean
sterile container.
The Enterococcus faecalis was cultured in a similar way to the E. Coli, using commercially
available BioBalls. Three BioBalls, each containing 30 micro-organisms, were spread onto
brain heart infusion agar plates following manufacturers instructions and incubated for 12 24 hours. Individual colonies were then harvested and spread onto new brain heart infusion
agar plates. The agar plates were incubated for approximately 24 hours prior to harvesting
the cells, using 5 mL of Ringers solution and a sterile loop. The Ringers solution and
micro-organisms were then transferred aseptically from the plate into a clean sterile
container.
A dilution series was prepared for both the E Coli and E faecalis inoculum cultures and
Colilert and Enterolert analysis carried out to determine the concentration of each solution
(following standard instructions supplied with the tests). Inoculum concentrations of > 106
16
cfu/100mL were required in order to prove a 7 log removal (minimum detection 100
cfu/100mL).
For dosing a greywater technology, 75 mL each of E. Coli and E. faecalis inocula was mixed
with secondary treated effluent and clay, and then added to the greywater feed using a
dosing pump (a Prominent gamma/4-W was used in this study). The amount of effluent
dosed with each feed was 1% of the volume of greywater fed each time (e.g. 1 L of
secondary treated effluent with 100 L of greywater). Feed volumes varied between 100 L and
225 L depending on the feed volume for each technology. Feed samples were taken as a
proportion of the total inlet flow from the sample point prior to the technology. The number of
feeds for which bacteria were dosed was determined by the results of the tracer study for
each technology.
Product samples were taken after processing by the technology and analysed for E Coli and
E. faecalis using Colilert and Enterolert Quantitray analysis.
6.2 Virus surrogate dosing method

MS2 and X174 coliphage selection
Previous studies comparing natural and laboratory cultures of bacteriophage in heat
treatment of wastewater and sludge state that single phage dosing results cannot be
extrapolated to all phages (Moc-Llivina et al. 2003). Thus, for this study, two bacteriophages
were used and their selection was based on size, resistance to certain treatments, isoelectric
points and their ease of use.
The bacteriophages selected were MS-2 and X174. Although they are a similar size (24
and 27 nm respectively), they have different isoelectric points, X174 pI = 6.6 and MS-2 pI =
3.9 (Dowd et al. 1998). The reason for basing selection on charge rather than size is that, for
the greywater treatment technologies currently on the market in Australia, removal at the
molecular level will be predominantly influenced by charge rather than size. Both MS-2 and
X174 have been used in previous wastewater (Moc-Llivina et al. 2003; Arraj et al. 2005)
and both have well documented detection and enumeration procedures (International
Standard Organisation 1995; International Standard Organisation 2000). MS-2 is an f-RNA
phage and X174 is a somatic coliphage. The use of other viral surrogates for other
technology types will require further investigation.
Phage preparation and detection
The X174 and MS-2 phages, as well as the WG 49 and E. Coli C hosts, were initially
sourced from the culture collection held by the University of NSW. The MS2 bacteriophage
was prepared by adding 1 mL of frozen stock of WG 49 (salmonella) host to 100 mL of prewarmed TYGB. CaCl2/glucose solution (1 mL per 100 mL) and Kanamycin solution (400 L
per 100 mL) were also added to the pre-warmed TYGB for this culture. The culture was
placed in the incubator at 37C for 2-3 hours until it reached mid log phase. Then 1 mL of
MS-2 phage (frozen stock) was added and the culture allowed to incubate at 37C overnight.
The X174 coliphage was prepared by adding 1 mL of frozen stock of E. Coli C to 100 mL of
pre-warmed TYGB. CaCl2/glucose solution (1 mL per 100mL) was also added to the prewarmed TYGB. The culture was placed in the incubator at 37C for 2-3 hours until it reached
mid log phase. Then 1 mL of the X174 coliphage (frozen stock) was added and the culture
was further incubated at 37C overnight.
A dilution series was prepared for each of the phage inocula and a double agar layer assay
for MS-2 (International Standard Organisation 1995) and X174 (International Standard
17
Organisation 2000) was carried out to ensure that the concentration range was correct prior
to dosing. The concentrations of each phage had to be at least 106 so that log 7 removal
could be proven by any system tested.
Phage dosing was carried out in the same way as the bacteria dosing using 75 mL of each
phage mixed with secondary treated effluent and clay, then dosed to the technology via
dosing pump for the duration of the feed. The amount of effluent dosed with each feed was
1% of the volume of greywater fed.
Product water samples were assayed for MS2 and X174 phage either in house or by a
NATA accredited laboratory. In house analysis used the ISO standard methods for MS-2
(International Standard Organisation 1995) and X174 (International Standard Organisation
2000).
6.3 Protozoa surrogate dosing method

The Clostridium perfringens spores were prepared from frozen stocks obtained from the
culture collection held by the University of NSW. These stock solutions were used to prepare
spread plates from 200 L aliquots of stock on ten perfringens agar plates. The plates were
incubated anaerobically at 37C for 3 days. After incubation, the cells were harvested from
the plates using 5 mL of Ringers solution and a sterile loop. The mixtures from all the plates
were combined and the total volume made up to 150 mL with Milli-Q water. This solution was
then incubated aerobically at 37C for 3 weeks.
Dosing the Clostridium perfringens solution was carried out in the same way as dosing for
the bacteria and phage and 75 mL of the Clostridium perfringens solution was mixed with
secondary treated effluent and clay and dosed to a technology. Concentrations of spores in
the inoculum were in the range 105 to 106 spores/100mL so that 7 log removal could be
proven.
Clostridium perfringens was analysed using the method described in AS/NZS 4276.17.1
(2000) (Australian Standard 2000). One litre sample volumes were used as previous work
had indicated that the product samples collected required concentration rather than the
dilution described in the standard method.
6.4 Helminth surrogate dosing method

The surrogate selected for Helminths were 90 m fluorescent latex microspheres
(Fluoresbrite YG microsphere). These were chosen as they are a similar size to Helminths
and the fluorescence can be easily detected.
The fluorospheres were added to the secondary effluent (1.2 x 105 beads added) which was
then dosed to the system with the synthetic greywater feed in the same way as for the other
micro-organisms. The concentration of spheres in the feed was approximately 103 / L. Ten
litre product samples were collected for analysis. The samples were analysed by filtration
through a 15 cm diameter 2.7 m filter which was then analysed by visual inspection in UV
box, to identify and count any fluorescent points detected.
6.5 Micro-organism dosing results

The results of the micro-organism dosing for the three technologies used in protocol
development indicate variability in the log removals observed for the different treatment types
(Diaper and Toifl 2006; Diaper et al. 2006; Diaper and Toifl 2007). As greywater formulation
18
and some methodologies changed throughout the development of the protocol, the direct
comparison of technology is not meaningful at this stage.
The results for the fluorospheres were the same for all technologies, with no fluorospheres
being detected in any product samples and all technologies providing a log 4 removal. The
visual fluorescence detection method used for analysis of samples was problematic as it was
difficult to see the fluorospheres in samples where the product water was turbid. Additionally,
large volumes of samples needed to be processed in order to determine that no
fluorospheres could be detected which was difficult for the turbid samples as the filters
became blocked very quickly. Further method calibration would be required in order to
validate the procedure if helminth testing were included.
However, it is recommended that a helminth surrogate is NOT incorporated in any future
testing protocol because:
Detection method of surrogate is problematic
Helminth concentrations in greywater are likely to be very low, if present
Latex fluorospheres are expensive to provide greater than 4 log removal
C.perfringens spores are 1-3 m (Lovins W.A. et al. 2002) and, if size exclusion is the
expected removal method, will provide a worst case compared to 90 m fluorospheres.
Table 5: Example results of micro-organism log removal for Technology C
Microorganism or
surrogate
Technology C
(Biological + Chemical
disinfection)
E. coli
>7
Faecal enterococci
>7
Bacteriophage MS-2
Coliphage X174
C. perfringens spores
Fluorospheres
19
7. Reporting
The reports from the three technologies tested are available on the Smart Water Fund
website (www.smartwater.com.au). The report contents are similar for all technologies and
incorporate a Protocol and methodology refinements section in addition to the description
and results from the technology testing. If this testing protocol is to be developed as a
national standard, reporting requirements will need to be specified. A suggested report
template is provided below. Incorporation of feedback and comment from regulatory
authorities is required to progress and finalise these reporting requirements.
System operation
o
Operational description (include schematic)
System specifications (flows, volumes, capacity, treatment cycle)
Tracer study
Outline sampling regime
Synthetic greywater quality and variability
Chemical testing
Operation (feed cycles, volumes and timing)
Results
Comment
Micro-biological testing
o
Bacteria
Results
Phages
Results
Clostridium perfringens
Results
Other technology issues
Protocol and methodology refinements
Summary and recommendation.
20
8. Discussion and recommendations

A robust and repeatable testing protocol for greywater treatment technologies which provides
proof of removal of various micro-organisms is required. The methodology proposed in this
report bridges the gap between the current prescriptive testing procedures for single house
installations and the framework approach recommended for larger scale applications. The
protocol is proposed to be applied for each technology (not each installation) and could be
combined with a desk-based risk assessment (see Section 9) and field sampling that is less
onerous than current requirements.
There are some points that require clarification before the testing protocol outlined in this
report is developed to a national standard. Some of these points are recommendations and
discussion points while others require additional research to clarify. Some of the
recommendations which require discussion that have arisen during the development of the
protocol are:
A helminth surrogate is NOT incorporated in any future testing protocol as surrogate

quantification was not accurate and helminth concentrations in greywater are likely to be
low.
Should the chemical analysis prove the technology is not operating correctly, it is
recommended that microbiological testing is suspended
Boron analysis is not included in the feed or product analysis following further
investigation of its likely presence in greywater. The concentrations of boron in greywater
would need to be confirmed by sending samples to a laboratory that has a very low limit
of detection.
When dosing micro-organism inocula, secondary effluent is not added to the synthetic
greywater, due to the potential competition between organisms in the effluent and
inocula, which could lower the number of organisms present.
Treatment technologies based primarily on biological processes are pre-commissioned

prior to testing if possible, as start-up times for biological processes were found to be
lengthy.
Another recommendation for the testing protocol is that the feed sample point is located
closer to the technology (current setup has 4-5 m of pipework and flowmeter prior to
technology). Micro-organisms can attach to particulate material and particulate material can
settle or adhere to feed pipework and so there may be some removal of micro-organisms in
the pipework prior to the technology. Locating the sample point as close to the technology as
practically possible will allow these effects to be taken into consideration.
Furthermore, there are some requirements for additional research work which will ensure the
protocol is robust, reliable and applicable to a range of technologies. Suggested additional
work includes:
Investigation of the use of other viral surrogates for other technology types which may be
based primarily on size exclusion. The surrogate selection for these trials was based on
the charge of the surrogates rather than size as this was more relevant for the
technologies that we were investigating. However for a membrane based technology, for
example, surrogates based on size would be more appropriate.
Further analysis of the ratio of micro-organism to clay concentrations to ensure a mix of

suspended and particulate associated micro-organisms.
Investigate the use of other tracers, such as Rhodamine B, if there are concerns
regarding the effects of sodium chloride on the greywater treatment process.
21
Further investigation of Total-N and Total-P ranges is required as the median and
averages for the current data analysed, were significantly different from the initial
parameter ranges suggested by Smart Water Fund. The original parameter ranges
suggested by SWF (1996) showed Total-P levels in greywater are greater than Total-N
levels. However, data collected recently from industry sources and some literature
suggests that P levels are actually lower than N levels in the greywater. This could be
due to changes in detergent formulations with many manufacturers beginning to produce
low phosphate detergents to be more environmentally friendly.
22
9. Future work
The proposed testing protocol outlined in this document does not provide a complete
assessment of technology performance and it is recommended that this protocol is combined
with a desk-based risk assessment and field testing. In field situations, greywater treatment
systems will operate long term and be subject to large variations in greywater quantity and
quality and particular householder behaviours. In the laboratory based testing protocol, these
issues are not assessed and a structured risk-based assessment is recommended in order to
understand the likely impacts of these variations.
Preliminary development of the desk-based risk assessment has been undertaken and a
Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) (Kletz 1999) type approach is recommended. This
approach requires an understanding of the possible causes of failure of the technology and
an assessment of their frequency and consequences. As such, the assessment team should
be multi-disciplinary in order to provide expertise in all potential health and environmental
risks and include someone with knowledge and expertise in system operation (often the
technology manufacturer).
The HAZOP process requires that the system be assessed component by component and
utilises keywords, such as NO, LESS and MORE to assess the impact of variations in
system operation on each component. These keywords are used to identify causes and
consequences for each deviation from normal operation. A quantitative scale can then be
used to rank the consequences i.e. Major (3), Moderate (2) and Minor (1), and the
frequencies of the causes i.e. Almost certain (3), Likely (2) and Unlikely (1) (highlighted in
yellow in Table 6). High, medium and low risks can then be identified and appropriate
controls can be suggested for high/medium risks if required i.e. frequency x consequence
score 6 (highlighted in red in Table 6).
Table 6: Example of HAZOP assessment method
Technology: System X Unit operation: Feed tank Guideword: None

Risk Controls
Deviation
Potential
causes
Consequences
No flow into
system for
extended period
Normal
operation i.e.
Holidays (3)
Nuisance odours as
untreated greywater
stored in tank (2)
(6)
Redesign system
to allow complete
emptying of tanks
Blockage in
collection
pipework (1)
No drainage of greywater
from supply point (2)
(2)
None
Fault with level

sensor (1)
Tank overflow (2)
(2)
None
Automatic system start

up not initiated (3)
(6)
Overflow design for

maximum flow
No level sensing
Incorrect
installation (2)
This assessment method is not yet fully developed for specific application to greywater
technologies and further definition of keywords and deviations is required to ensure the
23
assessment is comprehensive. Comment and discussion from regulatory authorities is

required before further development of this process occurs.
In addition to the laboratory based testing and desk-based assessment, further development
of necessary field monitoring and analysis is required in order to ensure the performance of
the system is maintained in the longer term.
24
Appendix 1 Synthetic greywater components

Market share of products used
Extracts from the IbisWorld report Soap & Other Detergent Manufacturing in Australia (28
July, 2005) suggest that Omo, Colgate, Palmolive are representative brands (see below).
Since the time of development of the synthetic greywater recipe more detailed market share
information has been obtained and this information could be used to update the formulation.
Colgate-Palmolive (extract from IbisWorld 2005)
In relation to this industry, the operations of Colgate Palmolive Australia involve the
manufacture and distribution of household cleaning, personal care products, and skincare. It
is probably best known for its toothpastes, detergents and soaps. Well known brand names
include Ajax, Cashmere Bouquet, Cold Power, Colgate, Cuddly, Dynamo, Fab, Total,
Nifti, Palmolive, Sard and Spree. Also included is Soft as Soap brand which was
acquired from Reckitt Benckiser in 2000-01 as well as the Fluffy & Castle brands acquired
from Campbell Brothers in October 2004. In 1999, Colgate Palmolive was the market leader
in the body wash market (24 percent market share) and held second place in the general
hard surface cleaner market (17 percent market share) and the laundry fabric softener
market (25 percent). It dominated the toothpaste segment with a 60 percent market share.
During the year, the company spent roughly $15 to $20 million in total on advertising for its
various products, putting it in the top 50 spenders on media expenditure. A study by AC
Nielsen found that Colgate-Palmolive was the overall market leader in the bar and liquid
soap segment in 2000 with 36.4 percent of the market, followed by Soft as Soap with 25.8
percent.
Unilever Australia (extract from IbisWorld 2005)
In relation to this industry, Unilever Australia is probably best known for its soaps, laundry
powders and liquids and cleaners. Following a series of divestments, remaining key brands
include Lux, Dove, Domestos, Jif, Handy Andy, Omo, Surf and Drive. Unilever is the
market leader in a number of major market segments in this industry, including heavy-duty
cleaners, floor cleaners and laundry powders. According to AC Nielsen figures released in
mid 2002, Unilever was the leading manufacturer within the men's toiletries and soap
segment commanding a 38 percent share of the $129 million market with its Rexona brand.
It was also thought to have a 32 percent share of the $585 million laundry market.
Review of chemicals in household products used for synthetic greywater
Laundry powder Omo High Performance concentrate 1kg, 5way cleaning action by Unilever
(Customer info: 1800 225 508, www.omocareline.com.au )
Ingredients as per package:
Anionic and non-ionic surfactants (Commonly used are alcohol ethoxylates and alkyl
phenol ethoxylates)
Optical brightener/fluorescer
Enzyme (commonly used is proteinase)
Alkalis
Sodium polyphosphate
Zeolite (synthetic ion-exchanging zeolites are commonly used)
Polymer
25
Perfume
Colour.
Ingredients as per Unilever Australasia MSDS Omo Concentrate powder
Sodium carbonate (CAS-No 497-19-8) 30-60%

Anionic surfactant 10-30%
Nonionic surfactants <10%
Sodium silicate (CAS-No 1344-09-8) <10%
Fluorescer <10%
Protease enzymes <10%
Other ingredients determined not to be hazardous to 100%
pH approx.10 -11 (1% @20C).
Palmolive Soft Wash Milk and Honey 500 mL, made in Thailand (Customer info: 1800 802
307)
Water
Sodium Laureth sulphate
Cocamidopropylbetaine
Cocaminde DEA
Lauryl glucoside
Polyquaternium 7
Fragrance
Glycol distearate
Laureth-4
Sodium chloride
Sodium sulphate
Citric acid
Poloxamer 124
Sodium styrene/acrylates copolymer
DMDM Hydantoin
Methylchloroisothiazolinone
Methylisothiazolinone
Tetrasodium EDTA
Honey
Dry milk powder
Ci 19140
Ci 16035.
Anti-perspirant Mum Dry Active, 24h by Procter and Gamble (Customer info: 1800 226 524)
Active ingredients as per package:
Aluminium chlorohydrate (22%w/w)
Other common ingredients in anti-perspirants
Binders
pH agents.
26
Sunscreen UV Triplegard 75 mL by Boots Healthcare (New Zealand) (Customer info: 1800

226 766)
Octyl methoxycinnamate 80 mg/mL

Oxybenzone 30 mg/mL
Butyl methoxydibenzolmethane 40 mg/L
Phenoxyethanol 1.6 mg/mL
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile 400 g/L.
Toothpaste Colgate Maximum Cavity Protection, regular flavour, 140 g by Colgate (Customer
info: Colgate Oral Care 1800 802 307)
Sodium monofluorophosphate 0.76% w/w.
Other common ingredients in toothpaste:
Abrasives: used to provide cleaning power, common compounds used are calcium
carbonate, silica, calcium phosphate, and alumina.
Detergents: used to create the foaming action and keep it from dribbling. The most
common detergent is sodium lauryl sulphate.
Humectants: to provide texture and retain moisture. Common humectants are Glycerin,
sorbitol, and water. Xylitol is a superior humectant but not commonly used.
Thickeners: Common thickeners are Carrageenan, cellulose gum and xanthan gum.
Preservatives: used to prevent growth of microorganisms in toothpaste. Common
examples are sodium benzoate, methyl paraben, triclosan and ethyl paraben. Common
preservatives include sodium benzoate, methyl paraben, and ethyl paraben.
Flavouring agents: Used to improve the taste of toothpaste. Most toothpaste sweeteners
are artificial and contribute very little to cavity formation. A common sweetener used is
Saccharin.
Colouring agents: used to improve the appearance of toothpaste. Artificial dyes are used
to colour red, green, and blue toothpastes. Titanium dioxide is used to make some
toothpastes white.
Tartar control: toothpaste that are designed for tartar control commonly contain
pyrophosphate.
Sunscreen UV Triplegard 75 mL by Boots Healthcare (New Zealand) (Customer info: 1800

226 766)
Octyl methoxycinnamate 80 mg/mL

Oxybenzone 30 mg/mL
Butyl methoxydibenzolmethane 40 mg/L
Phenoxyethanol 1.6 mg/mL
Methyldibromo glutaronitrile 400 g/L.
Dove Protecting Moisturising Lotion

Octyl methoxycinnamate (5.5%)

Butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane (2.0%)
27
Octyl salicylate (3.0%)

Phenylbenzimidazol sulfonic acid (2.0%).
Also contains:
Methylparaben
Propylparaben
Phenoxyethanol
Iodopropynyl butylcarbamate
Fragrance.
28
Appendix 2 Estimation of amount of products used

Average volume of greywater produced is 230 l/household/day*
43%* or 100 l/household/day greywater from washing machine
57%* or 130 l/household/day greywater from bathroom
*Melbourne Water Map, Yarra Valley Water 240 kL/hh/year, 20% bathroom, 15% laundry
Shampoo and laundry detergent

30* g soap/shampoo/conditioner per shower/bath and 4 showers per day
9* g soap per handwash and 5 handwashes per day
*Shampoo and soap account for all products used in shower/bath and sink except toothpaste
Total of 165 g for 130 L of greywater

1 scoop laundry detergent 88 g
88 g per laundry wash
Average wash rate 0.4 washes/household per day
0.4 x 88 g/household per day = 34.5 g for 100 L laundry greywater
230 L daily contains 34.5g laundry detergent and 120g shampoo/soap/conditioner
100 L requires 15 g laundry detergent and 72g shampoo
Deodorant, sunscreen and toothpaste
Estimated amounts used per household per day
1.1 g deodorant for 130 litres bathroom greywater
3.5 g sunscreen for 130 litres bathroom greywater
7.5 g toothpaste for 130 litres bathroom greywater
230 L daily contains 1.1 g deodorant, 3.5 g sunscreen and 7.5 g toothpaste
100 L requires 0.5 g deodorant, 1.5 g sunscreen, 3.25 g toothpaste
29
Appendix 3 Properties of Unimin clay

The particle size distribution and chemical and physical properties of the Unimin clay used in
the synthetic greywater are provided below.
30
Appendix 4 Real greywater quality

Greywater quality data was collected and collated from literature values or data from
greywater technology testing programs run by system manufacturers or independent testing
organisations (e.g. Ecowise). As expected, there was a large variability in the analysed
parameters as the greywater quality data came from a variety of different dwelling types (a
youth hostel, a caravan park, single residential houses and multi-residential dwellings) and
sources (laundry only, bathroom only or laundry and bathroom combined). In addition, the
householder behaviour varied between the different sites, with some householders being
very environmentally aware (minimising water and product use and using products with
environmental labelling), whilst others were not. In addition, not all raw data was available for
analysis and so there was a mix of spot samples, averages or mean values and median
data. This variability in the type and sources of data collected did not merit detailed statistical
analysis of the data and so a simple analysis was used, in which median and average values
were calculated for all the data. The values were then used to assess whether parameter
ranges needed to be widened or reduced or the whether the median of range should be
increased or reduced.
Table 7: Synthetic greywater parameter ranges compared to Australian greywater data
Parameter
Original
range
Suspended
solids (mg/L)
60 - 80
Updated range
(mg/L unless
otherwise stated)
60 - 80
BOD (mg/L)
150 - 200
130 - 180
172
109
Turbidity (NTU)
60 80
50 70
52
43.6
Sodium (mg/L)
80 130
50 90
96
73
Total
phosphorous
P (mg/L)
10 20
10 20
5.9
3.12
Total Kjeldahl
nitrogen N
(mg/L)
3.0 5.0
3.0 5.0
11.1
11.6
Conductivity
(S/cm)
450 - 550
300 - 400
361
290
Total coliforms
(cfu/100mL)
103 104
103 104
68200
23500
201
202
Faecal coliforms
(cfu/100mL)
Average of collected
data
Median of collected
data
76
45.5
31
Table 8: Australian greywater quality data
Healthy home (Gardner and

Millar, 2003)
Caravan park (Flapper et
al., 2005)
Lavendar Park (pers comm.
Ecowise)
Bath and shower (pers
comm. Ecowise)
Laundry (pers comm.
Ecowise)
Laundry and bathroom
(pers comm. Ecowise)
YHA 1 (pers comm.
Ecowise)
YHA 2 (pers comm.
Ecowise)
Westwyck (CRC Report,
200?)
Inkerman shower and hand
basin (CRC Report, 200?)
Landloch Pty Ltd 2005
Christova Boal et al 1996
Jeppesen 1996
Eight person household
(pers comm. Ecowise)
Bio-flow Maidstone
Bio-flow Williamstown
Bio-flow Mt Evelyn
Highett House (Tunaley,
2004)
Comments
BOD
SS
Median
97
48
Max and min

only
Spot sample
130
43
TKN
Total - N
Turbidity
EC
6.6
3.5
3.5
TP
0.7
82
290
144
39
43.6
332
Average 5 to 10
samples
Median
34
33.8
189
52.5
79.5
14
15
2.75
Median
180
73.5
9.1
9.1
3.5
Laundry only
Max and min
only
Sullage
Median
787
100.6
159
210
113
335
11.6
12.6
Average
Average
Average
Median
57
68.5
109.25
38
25
21.5
90
23
5.53
15.53
21.67
6.6
5.57
15.53
21.67
AVERAGE
MEDIAN
172
109.25
76
45.5
11.1
11.6
10.3
9.1
385
1.5
170
1.35
1037
21.5
177.9
601
8.1
73
21.5
103.5
10.13
10.2
10.37
0.28
52
43.6
361
290
5.9
3.125
51.4
11.9
100
180000
100
202
33.8
4.25
FC
>2000
39
Average
TC
0.14
Average 5 to 10
samples
Average 9 to 15
samples
Average
Na
38
988
300
<1
23500
96
73
68163
23500
201
202
32
Appendix 5 Modifications to synthetic greywater

formulations
Ingredient
Product used
Formulation 1
Formulation 2
Formulation 3
Amount in 100L (g)
Amount in 100L (g)
Amount in 100L (g)
Unless otherwise stated
Sunscreen
UV triplegaurd
1.5
1.5
1.5
Toothpaste
Colgate
3.25
3.25
3.25
Deoderant
Mum
0.5
1.0
1.0
Na2SO4
Analytical Grade
3.5
3.5
Unimin Clay
Industrial Grade
5.0
5.0
1 ml
Urine
Vegetable Oil
Coles Own brand
0.7
0.7
0.7
Shampoo
Palmolive
72
72
72
Laundry
Detergent
Omo High
Performance/
Omomatic
concentrate
15
15
15
Antifoam
Silfoam SEA39
1.5
As required
Secondary
Effluent
Carrum STP
1L
1L
1L
Boric Acid
Analytical grade
0.14
0.14
Urea
Analytical Grade
0.5
0.5
NAHCO3
Analytical Grade
2.5
2.5
Na2PO4
Analytical grade
3.9
^ = Ingredient not included
33
Appendix 6 Changes in parameter ranges for large scale

batches using different synthetic greywater formulations
Parameter
Original
range
(Jeppesen
1996)
Suspended solids
60 - 80
Updated
range
Appendix 3
(mg/L
unless
otherwise
stated)
60 - 80
Results from
large scale
batches Formulation 1
Results from
large scale
Results from
large scale
51.4 17.9
70.3 14
67 47.1
BOD
150 - 200
130 - 180
84.2 28.2
125 11
105 13.3
Temperature
20 - 30C
25 - 35C
pH
6.5 8.0
6.5 8.0
6.9 0.2
8.2 0.7
7.1 0.1
Turbidity
60 80
NTU
50 70 NTU
32.8 17.7
27.3 5.2
46.1 25.4
Boron
0.1 0.5
0.1 0.5
0.8 0
<1.5
< 2.0
Sodium
80 130
50 90
57.7 5
56.4 1.2
64.5 1.1
Calcium
6.7 0.6
7.4 0.4
7.4 0.3
Magnesium
1.3 0.1
1.5 0.04
1.4 0.1
Aluminium
Zinc
0.1 0.5
0.1 0.5
0.08 0.01
<0.01
0.02 0
Total phosphorousP
10 20
10 20
9.7 0.6
9.1 0.2
16.9 1.5
Total Kjeldahl
nitrogen-N
3.0 5.0
3.0 5.0
4.5 1.1
5.4 0.4
5.2 0.1
Nitrate
<0.2
0.2
Nitrite
0.014 0.005
0.007 0.004
1.5 1.0
Conductivity
(S/cm)
450 - 550
300 - 400
298 29.5
281 7.4
324 12.6
COD
250 - 400
250 - 400
171.1 35.5
224 15
238 11.4
TOC
50 - 150
50 - 150
35.1 5.9
Total coliforms
(cfu/100mL)
10 10
E.coli (cfu/100mL)
101 - 102
48.5 12
43 6.4
>2419.6
>2419.6
102 103
83 113
67 100
7.8 5.1
850 1111
10 10
F.Enterococci
(cfu/100mL)
Highlighted cells show out of range parameters
34
References
Arraj, A., J. Bohatier, et al. (2005). "Comparison of bacteriophage and enteric virus removal
in pilot scale activated sludge plants." Journal of Applied Microbiology 98: 516-524.
Australian Standard (2000). Water Microbiology.
Australian Standard (2002). Safety in Laboratories Part 3: Microbiological Aspects and
Containment Facilities.
Birks, R. and S. Hills (2007). "Characterisation of Indicator Organisms and Pathogens in
Domestic Greywater for Recycling." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
129(1-3): 61-69.
Birks R., Colbourne J., et al. (2004). "Microbiological water quality in a large in-builidng water
recycling facility." Water Science and Technology 50(2): 165-172.
Brandes, M. (1978). "Characteristics of effluents from gray and black water septic tanks."
Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation. Vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 2547-2559. 1978.
50(11): 2547-2559.
Brown R. and Palmer A. (2002). Water Reclamation Standard: Laboratory testing of systems
using greywater, BSRIA, UK.
Casanova, L. M., V. Little, et al. (2001). "A survey of the microbial quality of recycled
household graywater." Journal of the American Water Resources Association [J. Am.
Water Resour. Assoc.]. Vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1313-1320. Oct 2001. 37(5): 1313-1320.
Diaper, C. and M. Toifl (2006). Greywater technology testing: Test 3 Everwater grey2blue.
CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Report, Smart Water Fund.
Diaper, C. and M. Toifl (2007). Greywater Technology testing: Test 4 New Water Aqua
Reviva. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Client Report, Smart Water Fund.
Diaper, C., M. Toifl, et al. (2006). Greywater Technology Testing: Test 2 Pontos Aquacycle
900. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Report, Smart Water Fund.
Diaper C. and Toifl M. (2006). Greywater technology testing: Test 3 Everwater grey2blue.
CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Report, Smart Water Fund.
Diaper C. and Toifl M. (2007). Greywater Technology testing: Test 4 New Water Aqua
Reviva. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Client Report, Smart Water Fund.
Diaper C., Toifl M., et al. (2006). Greywater Technology Testing: Test 2 Pontos Aquacycle
900. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Report, Smart Water Fund.
Dowd S.E., Pillai S.D., et al. (1998). "Delineating the specific influence of virus isoelectric
point on virus adsorption and transport through sandy soils." Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 64(2): 405-410.
Dowd, S. E., S. D. Pillai, et al. (1998). "Delineating the specific influence of virus isoelectric
point on virus adsorption and transport through sandy soils." Applied and
Environment Protection and Heritage Council, Natural Resource Management Ministerial
Council, et al. (2006). Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health
and Environmental Risks (Phase 1). National Water Quality Management Strategy.
Environmental Protection Authority Victoria (1991). Guidelines for wastewater irrigation.
Melbourne.
Eriksson, E., K. Auffarth, et al. (2002). "Characteristics of grey wastewater." Urban Water 4:
85-104.
Friedler, E. (2004). "Quality of Individual Domestic Greywater Streams and its Implication for
On-Site Treatment and Reuse Possibilities." Environmental Technology 25: 9971008.
IbisWorld (2005). Soap and other detergent manufacturing in Australia.
International Standard Organisation (1995). Water quality - Detection and enumeration of
bacteriophages - Part 1: Enumeration of F-specific RNA bacteriophages, ISO.
35
International Standard Organisation (2000). Water Quality - Detection and enumeration of

bacteriophages - Part 2 Enumeration of somatic coliphages, International Standard
Organisation.
Jefferson, B., A. Palmer, et al. (2004). "Greywater characterisation and its impact on the
selection and operation of technologies for urban reuse." Water Science and
Technology 50(2): 157-164.
Jeppesen, B. (1996). Model Guidelines for domestic greywater reuse for Australia. Report
No. 107, Urban Water Research Association of Australia.
Kletz, T. (1999). Hazop and Hazan, Taylor & Francis.
Lovins W.A., Taylor J.S., et al. (2002). "Micro-organism removal by membrane systems."
Environmental Engineering Science 19(6): 453-465.
Moc-Llivina, L., M. Muniesa, et al. (2003). "Survival of Bacterial Indicator Species and
Bacteriophages after Thermal Treatment of Sludge and Sewage " Applied and
New South Wales Department of Energy Utilities and Sustainability (2007). NSW Guidelines
for: Greywater reuse in sewered, single household residential premises. Sydney.
New South Wales Department of Water and Energy (2007). Interim NSW Guidelines for
Management of private recycled water schemes. Sydney.
New South Wales Government (2006). Metropolitan Water Plan: 38-39.
New South Wales Health Department (2005). Domestic greywater treatment systems
accreditation guidelines.
New South Water Health (2005). Greywater and sewage recycling in multi dwellings and
commercial premises - Interim Guidance. Sydney, NSW.
Ottoson, J. and T. A. Stenstroem (2003). "Faecal contamination of greywater and associated
microbial risks." Water Research 37(3): 645-655.
Ottoson, J. and T. A. Stenstroem (2003). "Growth and reduction of microorganisms in
sediments collected from a greywater treatment system." Letters in Applied
Microbiology 36: 168-172.
Rose, J. B., G. S. Sun, et al. (1991). "Microbial quality and persistence of enteric pathogens
in graywater from various household sources." Water Research 25(1): 37-42.
Siegrist R.L., Witt M., et al. (1976). "Characteristics of rural household wastewater." Journal
of the Environmental Engineering Division EE3: 533-548.
Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment (2004). Our Water Our
Future Action Plan. Melbourne.
Walpole, R. and K. J. Hartley, Eds. (1993). Characteristics of australian wastewaters.
Australia.
Walter, R., C. Baumgartiger, et al. (1995). "Viruses in river waters and sediments in Austria."
Water Science and Technology 31(5-6): 395-401.
Winward, G. P., L. M. Avery, et al. (2007). "A study of the microbial qulaity of grey water and
an evaluation of treatment technologies for reuse." Ecological Engineering 32(2): 187197.
36

Greywater Application

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Greywater Application

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Greywater Technology Testing Protocol

Clare Diaper, Melissa Toifl and Michael Storey

Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Report series ISSN: 1835-095X

Greywater technology testing protocol

Biological with suspended media

Chemical flocculant dosing, UV and four stage

Settling, biological with fixed media

Feed tank (1000 L capacity recommended)

Submersible pump for mixing greywater

Greywater feed pump (specifications dependent on technologies tested and laboratory

Pressure rated dosing pump for inoculum dosing

Online flow meter or rotameter (flow range dependent on technologies tested)

Effluent storage tanks to allow disinfection of treated greywater.

Greywater technology testing protocol

Three stages of testing were proposed as follows:

Hydraulic integrity testing of the technology

Greywater technology testing protocol

A check of performance in removal of greywater components that are harmful to the

Proof of performance of a technology in the removal of a range of surrogate microorganisms

Some assessment of operational issues.

Greywater technology testing protocol

Tracer study .................................................................................................... 11

Bacterial dosing method ......................................................................................... 16

Appendix 1 Synthetic greywater components ................................................. 25

Greywater technology testing protocol

Greywater technology testing protocol

Greywater Technology Testing Protocol

Greywater Technology Testing Protocol

Biological with suspended

Chemical flocculant dosing,

Settling, biological with fixed

Section 3 outlines the development of a synthetic greywater, which contains a variety of

Greywater Technology Testing Protocol

Physical Containment Level 2 (PC2) laboratory

Submersible pump for mixing

Feed pump (specifications dependent on technologies tested and laboratory setup)

Pressure rated dosing pump

Online flow meter (flow range dependent on technologies tested)

Effluent storage tanks.

Greywater Technology Testing Protocol

Figure 1: Technologies tested during protocol development (L to R, A, B and C)

Figure 2: Schematic of the system layout

Greywater Technology Testing Protocol

Mimic real greywater in composition

Provide a matrix that allows micro-organism and pathogen survival

Contain compounds in detectable concentrations identified as having detrimental

Greywater Technology Testing Protocol

Table 2: Final synthetic greywater recipe (Formulation 4)

Amount in 100L (g)

Colgate Maximum Cavity

Coles Own brand

Omo High Performance/

Eastern Treatment Plant at

The properties of the Unimin clay are given in Appendix 3

Addition dependent on boron detection limit

micro-organism to clay concentrations is required in order to ensure a mix of suspended and

Greywater Technology Testing Protocol

Table 3: Parameter ranges and quality of synthetic greywater

Results from final

Total Kjeldahl nitrogenN

Greywater Technology Testing Protocol

Greywater Technology Testing Protocol

Electrical Conductivity (S/cm)