Science of the Total Environment 551–552 (2016) 706–711

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

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

Single house on-site grey water treatment using a submerged membrane

bioreactor for toilet flushing
M.S. Fountoulakis ⁎, N. Markakis, I. Petousi, T. Manios
Department of Agricultural Technology, Technological Educational Institute of Crete, Heraklion, Greece

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Membrane bioreactor is an effective

method for grey water treatment.
• Anionic surfactants removed at about
80%.
• Treated grey water is almost free of
pathogenic content.
• Nitrogen content in the influent and the
effluent varied seasonally.
• Effluent satisfy the international guide-
lines for indoor reuse.

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

Article history: Wastewater recycling has been and continues to be practiced all over the world for a variety of reasons including:
Received 17 December 2015 increasing water availability, combating water shortages and drought, and supporting environmental and public
Received in revised form 8 February 2016 health protection. Nowadays, one of the most interesting issues for wastewater recycling is the on-site treatment
Accepted 8 February 2016
and reuse of grey water. During this study the efficiency of a compact Submerged Membrane Bioreactor (SMBR)
Available online xxxx
system to treat real grey water in a single house in Crete, Greece, was examined. In the study, grey water was col-
Editor: D. Barcelo lected from a bathtub, shower and washing machine containing significant amounts of organic matter and path-
ogens. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal in the system was approximately 87%. Total suspended solids
Keywords: (TSS) were reduced from 95 mg L−1 in the influent to 8 mg L−1 in the effluent. The efficiency of the system to
Wastewater reduce anionic surfactants was about 80%. Fecal and total coliforms decreased significantly using the SMBR sys-
Anionic surfactants tem due to rejection, by the membrane, used in the study. Overall, the SMBR treatment produces average effluent
Removal efficiency values that would satisfy international guidelines for indoor reuse applications such as toilet flushing.
Regulations © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Recycled water

1. Introduction

Wastewater recycling has been and continues to be practiced all

⁎ Corresponding author. over the world for a variety of reasons including: increasing water avail-
E-mail address: mfountoul@staff.teicrete.gr (M.S. Fountoulakis). ability, combating water shortages and drought, and supporting

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.057
0048-9697/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 M.S. Fountoulakis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 551–552 (2016) 706–711 707

environmental and public health protection (U.S. Environmental Table 1

Protection Agency, 2004). Nowadays, one of the most interesting issues Previous studies about greywater treatment with MBR.

for wastewater recycling is the on-site treatment and reuse of grey Country Water source Building Membrane type
water. UKa Artificial Multistory building Flat
Grey water has been defined as wastewater originating from bath- Chinab Showers (mainly) University building Hollow
tubs, showers, hand basins, washing machines, dishwashers and Germanyc Bathrooms & kitchens Apartments & office Flat
kitchen sinks (Eriksson et al., 2009). Recently, a trend has emerged by Moroccod Showers Sports & leisure club Hollow
UKe Showers & bathroom sinks University building Flat
which grey water is excluded from kitchen sinks and dishwashers
Spainf Showers & bathroom sinks Company Building Flat
(Oron et al., 2014). The advantage of recycling grey water is that it is a Austriag Artificial Single house Hollow
plentiful water source with a low pathogen and organic content. To il- Jordanh Cleaning and sinks University building Hollow
lustrate, grey water represents 50–70% of total consumed water but a
Jefferson et al. (2000).
contains only 30% of the organic fraction and 9–20% of the nutrients, b
Liu et al. (2005).
c
thereby making it a good source for water reuse. Moreover, in an indi- Lesjean and Gnirss, 2006.
d
vidual household, it has been established that grey water could poten- Merz et al. (2007).
e
Winward et al. (2008).
tially support the amount of water needed for toilet flushing and f
Santasmasas et al. (2013).
outdoor uses such as car washing and garden watering. Grey water g
Jabornig and Favero (2013).
varies regionally and over time. Water supply quality and activities in h
Bani-Melhem et al. (2015).
the house have an effect on the characteristics of grey water. Grey
water originating from the bathroom and laundry includes mainly
chemicals (detergents, soaps and salts) and several million pathogenic evident that there is a real lack of information on the behavior of MBR
bacteria, which can cause a health hazard if this water is reused without systems under real conditions in the case of single houses. Grey water
proper treatment. Therefore, grey water must undergo certain treat- from single households is a resource and can be reused on-site, if treated
ments so that it can be made ready for reuse (Bani-Melhem et al., 2015). appropriately, for toilet flushing, car washing and laundry use.
Recently, the use of grey water has been encouraged by several Substituting grey water for drinking water for these end uses will not
countries worldwide including Australia (Pinto and Maheshwari, only reduce the demand on drinking water supplies, but will also reduce
2010), USA (Yu et al., 2013), Japan (Ogoshi et al., 2001), Jordan the amount of wastewater discharged into the environment. When it
(Halalsheh et al., 2008), Cyprus (Charalambous et al., 2011) and Israel comes to single houses, higher fluctuations in both quantity and quality
(Oron et al., 2014). Australia, for example, has already developed guide- characteristics of grey water are observed depending on the residents'
lines for grey water reuse and offers rebates for the installation of grey habits which may have an effect on the performance of the MBR. During
water systems. Severe droughts resulting in stringent restrictions on this study, the efficiency of a compact SMBR system in treating real grey
outdoor tap water use have resulted in up to 71% of Melbourne house- water in a single house in Crete, Greece, was examined in which physi-
holds (ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007) reusing grey water cal, chemical and microbial characteristics of the effluent were moni-
most frequently collected from laundry use and bathroom. In Tokyo, tored and compared with the influent.
Japan grey water recycling is mandatory for buildings with an area
N30,000 m2 or with a potential non-potable demand of more than
100 m3 per day. The government has created incentives in this respect: 2. Materials & methods
In order to offset the costs associated with construction, the Japanese
Ministry of Construction provides subsidies of up to 50% of the capital 2.1. Experimental setup
costs. Meanwhile, in Palo Alto, California, officials are promoting incen-
tives that will help offset the high costs associated with the installation The SMBR used in this study consisted of a bioreactor with a working
of advanced grey water treatment systems. City officials are offering volume of 1.0 m3 which also included sufficient balancing volume for
homeowners $1.50 per square foot, up to $3000, of lawn removal if incoming grey water flushes and a flat plate membrane (SiClaro
grey water irrigation and less water-demanding landscaping are FM611, Martin) with a pore size of 0.04 μm and a total surface area of
established. 6.25 m2. Aeration was provided at the base of the membrane module
Depending on the required reuse applications, different treatment via a diffuser supplied with air from an air compressor. The grey water
technologies including physical (March et al., 2004), chemical (Pidou flowed up to the SMBR system using the force of gravity. The water
et al., 2008; Lin et al., 2005) and biological (Eriksson et al., 2009; Leal level in the SMBR was controlled by a pump and a float switch system.
et al., 2012; Lamine et al., 2007) operational methods can be imple- When the water level in the tank reached a high level (1.0 m3), a float
mented for grey water treatment. So while, sand filter or settlement switch activated the suction pump and air compressor. On the other
and flotation are used for landscape irrigation, a more complex system hand, when water level reached a low level (0.8 m3), the suction
is required, on the other hand, for an “in-house” reuse of treated grey pump and air compressor were turned off. In order to reduce the oper-
water (Li et al., 2009). Rotary biological contactors (RBC) (Eriksson ating cost of the SMBR, aeration was applied only when the suction
et al., 2009; Nolde, 1999), membrane bioreactors (Bani-Melhem et al., pump was turned on.
2015; Huelgas and Funamizu, 2010; Lesjean and Gnirss, 2006), con- The treatment unit was also equipped with a UV lamp (AT 1500,
structed wetlands (Kadewa et al., 2010; Comino et al., 2013) and se- Norwego) at 254 nm for additional disinfection and a flow meter to re-
quencing batch reactors (SBR) (Gabarro et al., 2013; Krishnan et al., cord the quantity of grey water. The UV lamp was inserted in-line with
2008) seem to be the more interesting treatment options for indoor the treated effluent pipe. The UV dose at the maximum flow rate was
reuse of grey water. Among the different treatment methods, the mem- 40 mW s/cm2. The disinfection compartment was equipped with an in-
brane bioreactor (MBR) appears to be an attractive method for grey ternal current sensing circuit that continuously monitored the perfor-
water treatment, particularly in collective urban residential buildings mance of the UV lamp.
since it combines physical separation of colloidal substances, including The system was installed in a single house in Gournes, Crete, Greece,
pathogenic bacteria, with aerobic biological treatment of dissolved or- which is permanently inhabited by two people (father and mother)
ganic matter, (Lazarova et al., 2003; Pidou, 2006; Li et al., 2009). who often host their daughter. Grey water in the house was collected
Although several previous studies have been conducted on grey from a bathtub, a shower and a washing machine.
water treatment using MBR technology (the sources of grey water and
types of membrane used in these works are presented in Table 1), it is
708 M.S. Fountoulakis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 551–552 (2016) 706–711

2.2. Chemical analyses 3.2. Submerged membrane bioreactor efficiency

The influent and effluent were sampled regularly for a period of
9 months (Sep 2014–Feb 2015 and Jul 2015–Sep 2015) and analyzed
for pH and Electrical Conductivity (EC) according to APHA, AWWA,
WEF (2005) using a pH-meter (model 3110, WTW) and conductimeter
(model 525, Crison). Turbidity was measured using a portable Turbidity
Meter (2100Q, Hach). Chemical oxygen demand (COD), Total Nitrogen
(TN), Nitrate, Total Phosphorus (TP) and Anionic Surfactants concentra-
tions were determined spectrophotometrically by use of standard test
kits (Hach-Lange). Total coliforms and Escherichia coli were determined
using the IDEXX Quanti-Tray® enumeration procedure with Colilert-
18® reagent (APHA, AWWA, WEF, 2005). Sealed trays were incubated
for 18 h at 37 °C, after which the MPN of total coliforms and E. coli
were determined.
2.3. Data analysis
The data was analyzed through one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to compare the effect of SMBR on grey water quality
characteristics.
3. Results & discussion
3.1. Grey water characteristics
The overall quantity of grey water produced over a period of
13 months (Sep 2014–Sep 2015) was 28.5 m3, corresponding to
73 L day−1 or to about 36.5 L inhabitant−1 day−1. A previous study
(Antonopoulou et al., 2013) in 90 households in Greece estimated
(based on the use of questionnaires) that the average quantity of waste-
water produced from showers, bathtubs and laundry use was signifi-
cantly higher (55.2 L inhabitant−1 day−1). Quantitatively, grey water
characteristics are presented in Table 2. Significant amounts of organic
matter as well as pathogens were recorded. The COD:N:P ratio was
100:7.1:0.3 which was quite good for nitrogen but poor for phosphorus.
Reliable data for household grey water in Greece is very limited.
Antonopoulou et al. (2013) reported COD and TSS concentrations
from shower and bathtub use of 399 ± 183 mg L−1 and 63 ±
38 mg L−1 respectively, values which are close to the findings of the
present study. No data for the other parameters are available in
Greece to our knowledge. Moreover, mean values found in this work
for all examined parameters are consistent with those reported in the
literature worldwide (Table 2) with the exception of nitrogen. In gen-
eral, grey water characteristics (quantitative and qualitative) produced
in houses vary widely, depending on the size of the household and the
residents' habits. In small houses, as in this case, higher fluctuations in
both quantity and quality characteristics of grey water are usually
observed.
Mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) in the bioreactor stabilized at
about 2–3 g/L. The ratio of MLVSS to MLSS ranged from 72% to 84% dur-
ing the experimental period. The reasons for the low values of MLSS ob-
served in this study may be due to the low aeration applied in the
reactor and the composition of the grey water, which contains a variety
of bactericidal substances from shampoos, soaps and cleaning agents.
Similarly, Liu et al. (2005) reported a MLSS concentration of about
1.3 g/L in a SMBR treating bath wastewater. Fig. 1 shows the variation
of COD concentration in the influent and the effluent of the SMBR. The
mean COD concentration in the effluent was found to be 59 ±
37 mg L−1, significantly lower than the COD concentration in the influ-
ent (466 ± 252 mg L−1). Similar results were also observed in a previ-
ous study (Bani-Melhem et al., 2015) treating real grey water from a
building belonging to the Faculty of Natural Resources at the Hashemite
University, Jordan where a decrease in COD value from 356 mg L−1 in
the influent to 42 mg L−1 in the SMBR effluent was found.
Santasmasas et al. (2013) reported a COD mean concentration of
29 mg L−1 in the effluent of an MBR while the COD concentration in
raw grey water (from showers and bathroom sinks) in a company
building in Spain was 302 mg L−1.
Total nitrogen variation during the monitoring period is presented in
Fig. 2 where we see that TN content in the influent and the effluent var-
ied seasonally. During the winter period, the influent contains seasonal
lower concentrations of TN (mean average 25 mg L−1 as opposed to
36 mg L− 1 during March-November). In the same period, seasonal
lower removal efficiencies were also recorded (mean average removal
of 19% as opposed to 45% during March-November). The lower nitrogen
content in raw grey water for the winter period may be linked to resi-
dents' activities. The system's limited overall performance in regard to
nitrogen removal was associated with the low aeration that was ap-
plied. It is a known fact that a high dissolved oxygen concentration
can enhance the nitrification rates while also inhibiting the denitrifica-
tion process. On the other hand, at lower dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions the nitrification process was inhibited, while the denitrification
process was enhanced (Pochana and Keller, 1999). The mean nitrate
concentration in the outlet of 0.2 ± 0.2 mg L−1 indicated that nitrifica-
tion process in the SMBR was inhibited.
In addition, decreased nitrogen removal efficiency during the winter
period could be related with lower temperatures. The optimum temper-
atures for common bacterial activity in activated sludge processes are in
the range of 25–35 °C. When the temperature drops to about 5 °C, the

Table 2
Characteristic values of grey water originated from bathroom and laundry.

Parameter Grey water

Previous studiesa This study

Min–max Mean (min–max)

pH 6.4–10 7.1 (6.2–7.8)

EC (mS cm−1) 0.9–1.6 0.6 (0.4–1.1)
COD (mg L−1) 26–645 466 (217–1461)
TSS (mg L−1) 7–250 95 (60–134)
Turbidity (NTU) 37–444 162 (29–559)
Total-N (mg L−1) 3.6–21 33 (16–63)
Total-P (mg L−1) 0.1–101 1.3 (0.5–3.8)
Anionic surfactants (mg L−1) 30–76 37 (11–62)
Total coliforms (MPN 100 mL−1) × 105 0–240 4.8 (0.8–119)
E. coli (MPN 100 mL−1) × 105 0–3.4 3.6 (0.6–81)
a
Christova-Boal et al. (1996); Almeida et al. (1999); Nolde (1999); Eriksson et al. Fig. 1. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) variation in the influent and the effluent of SMBR
(2002); Friedler (2004); Antonopoulou et al. (2013); Bani-Melhem et al. (2015). during the monitoring period.
 M.S. Fountoulakis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 551–552 (2016) 706–711
Fig. 2. TN variation in the influent and the effluent of SMBR during the monitoring period
in comparison with air temperature (monthly mean).
autotrophic nitrifying bacteria practically cease functioning
(Krzeminski et al., 2012). Chiemchaisri and Yamamoto (1994) exam-
ined the performance of a membrane bioreactor for domestic wastewa-
ter treatment at various temperatures and found that nitrogen removal
decreased significantly as the temperature dropped to 10 °C.
A reduction of total phosphorus concentration was also observed
(data not shown). TP concentration varied from 0.5 to 1.7 mg L−1 in
the untreated grey water, and from 0.01 to 0.7 mg L−1 in the SMBR ef-
fluent. The SMBR system's performance, with respect to TP removal,
was close to the results found in the literature (Bani-Melhem et al.,
2015; Lesjean and Gnirss, 2006).
Fig. 3 shows the SMBR system's performance with respect to anionic
surfactant removal. The average removal was about 80% during the
monitoring period with a mean concentration value in the effluent of
8.0 mg L−1. Turning to anionic surfactants which are widely used in
many personal care and household products, to our knowledge, there
are limited reports on anionic surfactant removal for SMBR systems
treating real grey water. That being said, Santasmasas et al. (2013) re-
ported a mean removal efficiency of about 98% using a significantly
lower mean concentration (compared to this study) of 7.1 mg L−1 of an-
ionic surfactants in the MBR inlet, while Bani-Melhem et al. (2015)
found a fluctuation in anionic surfactant removal from 60% to 90%
Fig. 3. Anionic surfactants variation in the influent and the effluent of SMBR during the
monitoring period.
709
during the treatment of grey water with an SMBR system (mean anionic
surfactant concentration of 45 mg L−1 in raw grey water).
Table 3 shows the overall performance of the SMBR system during
the monitoring period. The pH and EC values were slightly increased
in the outlet of the system, which should be taken into consideration
in case of reuse for crop irrigation. A very efficient removal of TSS and
turbidity was observed. Total coliforms and E. coli decreased signifi-
cantly with the SMBR system due to rejection, from the UF membrane,
used in the study. The effluent was almost free of pathogenic content.
On average, the SMBR system reduced the total coliforms and E. coli
from 4.8 × 105 MPN 100 mL−1 and 3.6 × 105 MPN 100 mL−1 in grey
water to b 7 MPN 100 mL−1 and 1 MPN 100 mL−1 in the effluent respec-
tively. In general, TSS, turbidity and pathogens were effectively re-
moved with the use of MBR systems (Bani-Melhem et al., 2015;
Jefferson et al., 2000; Santasmasas et al., 2013; Jabornig and Favero,
2013; Ghunmi et al., 2011). This makes the application of MBR systems
the ideal solution for grey water treatment.
3.3. Quality criteria for toilet flushing reuse
The scope of this study was to examine the efficiency of an SMBR for
the purposes of producing high quality recycled water that satisfies
stringent reuse criteria for indoor uses such as toilet flushing. Table 4
presents the quality criteria for the application of treated grey water
worldwide for toilet flushing (toilet flushing guidelines require disinfec-
tion to avoid human health related risks for which turbidity and E. coli
concentrations are the two most-used parameters). The worldwide
quality criteria varied from b20 to b2 NTU for turbidity and from
b100 to b1 number 100 mL−1 for E. coli. Treated grey water in this
study satisfied all existing guidelines with the exception of the Califor-
nia turbidity criteria. The pH and TSS values were also in the range re-
quired by international standards noting that BOD values, as required
by the Australian guidelines were not measured in this study.
3.4. Cost analysis
A payback analysis was conducted for the examined SMBR treat-
ment system, the methodology of which has been described by
Jabornig (2013). Briefly, cash values are calculated and compared with
a zero investment case without the treatment of grey water. The total
cost includes the investment and operation cost of a treatment system
as well as the fresh water cost and sewage disposal fees in the case of
no treatment.
The grey water amount produced annually from a four people
household in Greece was estimated at 53 m3 according to the findings
of this study (36.5 L inhabitant−1 day−1). The investment cost for the
SMBR and disinfection unit was €4050 (including installation cost).
The total operation cost was calculated to be approximately
€186 a year−1. Specifically, power demand for the treatment system
was estimated at 4.2 kWh m−3 with a power cost per kWh of €0.179
(Greece mean value). The mean life time of the membrane was
Table 3
Effluent concentrations and removal efficiencies for quality parameters for SMBR during
treatment of grey water.
Parameter Mean (min–max) Removal (%)
pH 7.9 (7.0–8.6)
EC (mS cm−1) 0.8 (0.6–1.9)
COD (mg L−1) 59 (34–157) 87
TSS (mg L−1) 8 (4–12) 92
Turbidity (NTU) 5.0 (1.5–9.9) 97
Total-N (mg L−1) 20 (8–47) 40
Total-P (mg L−1) 0.4 (0.1–1.6) 69
Anionic surfactants (mg L−1) 8 (2–17) 80
Total coliforms (MPN 100 mL−1) 1.3 (b1–18) 100
E. coli (MPN 100 mL−1) b1 100
710 M.S. Fountoulakis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 551–552 (2016) 706–711

Table 4
Grey water results obtained in this study in comparison with guidelines and regulations worldwide.

Parameter UKa Australiab USAc Israeld This study

pH 5.0–9.5 6.5–8.5 – – 7.9

Turbidity (NTU) b10 b2 (95%) b2 (avg) b20 5.0 (avg)
b5 (max) b5 (max) (mean b 10) 9.9 (max)
BOD (mg L−1) – b10 – – –
TSS (mg L−1) – b10 – – 8
E. coli (number 100 mL−1) b25 b1 b100 b400 b1
(mean b 100)
Total coliforms (MPN 100 mL−1) – – b2.2 (avg) – 1.3 (avg)
b23 (max) 18 (max)
Application Toilet flushing Toilet flushing/washing machines Toilet flushing Toilet flushing –
a
British standards Institute BS-8525-2 (2011).
b
Government of Western Australia (2011).
c
California Title 22 as reported by Yu et al. (2013).
d
SI-6147 as reported by Oron et al. (2014).

considered to be five years with a replacement cost of €50 m−2 while
membrane cleaning costs were estimated to be €10 a year−1. Mainte-
nance costs were estimated to be 3% of the investment. The price in-
crease for operation costs and fresh water was assumed to be 2%
while the interest rate for the investment was calculated at a rate of 3%.
Many areas in Greece such as the Aegean islands and Crete suffer
from water scarcity (total population: 1,131,311 people, 2011 census).
Water importation from the mainland is a common practice on the Ae-
gean Islands, as it is the only way to instantly fulfill these islands' fresh-
water needs. In addition, many single houses in Crete transport water
for their indoor needs. As a result, the cost of fresh water in many of
these cases is more than €10 m−3. Furthermore, a number of single
houses built all over the coastal areas of the Greek islands have no con-
nection with sewerage systems. As a result, homeowners use cesspits
for temporary sewage disposal which harbors a significantly high cost
(about €5 m−3) which is related to sewage transport using vacuum
trucks.
Two scenarios were examined in regard to the payback analysis: one
with a fresh water and sewage disposal cost of €10 m− 3 (more fre-
quently the case in many single houses on the Aegean islands and
coastal Crete) and another with a fresh water and sewage disposal
cost of €5 m−3 (more often the case with single houses on the main-
land). In regard to the first scenario, the results (Table 5) showed that
the SMBR system is feasible as there is a payback time of b13 years
with the opposite being true for the second scenario which entailed a
payback time of over 70 years.
A recent feasibility study conducted in Austria concerning on-site
MBR systems shows that the investment is still too high for a payback
time of b15 years for single households (Jabornig, 2013); the same au-
thor stated that the major factors, if these systems are to be feasible,
are the fresh water cost and sewage disposal costs. The higher these
costs are, the faster the investment in on-site MBR systems can become
cost effective. In regard to this study, it was found that where fresh
water and sewage disposal costs were above €10 m− 3, the on-site
SMBR systems were feasible even for single houses.
Table 5
Treatment performance and payback analysis for a single house in Greece.a
Although the use of other systems has also been placed under con-
sideration (Li et al., 2009), all other systems achieve quality criteria (es-
pecially for TSS and turbidity) for indoor uses with a degree of difficulty.
Thus the combination of the aerobic biological process with physical fil-
tration and disinfection may be an economical and feasible solution
(Friedler and Hadari, 2006). That being said, there is no available data
for grey water treatment in single houses in this respect. In his overview
of companies producing advanced grey water systems for single house-
holds (2013), Jabornig found that there were, in total, 13 companies
from which 11 use membrane filtration either as MBR or direct UF/MF
filtration, as a treatment step. So, both companies and researchers are
convinced that on-site MBR systems will have a promising future
(Jabornig, 2013) on advanced grey water treatment.
4. Conclusions
During this study the efficiency of a compact submerged membrane
bioreactor for on-site grey water treatment in a single house in Crete,
Greece, was examined for the first time. Real grey water produced in
the household contained significant concentrations of COD, TSS, anionic
surfactants and pathogens. SMBR treatment was found to be an effective
method of grey water treatment and reuse with respect to the above pa-
rameters. The mean reduction of COD and anionic surfactants was more
than 80% while total coliforms and E. coli were also almost 100% effec-
tively removed. Unexpectedly, a significant amount of nitrogen was re-
corded in raw grey water, while the nitrogen removal efficiency of the
SMBR fluctuated seasonally from 19% in winter to 45% during other pe-
riods. The use of a complicated and relative costly system for grey water
treatment necessitates the production of high quality recycled water.
This recycled water should satisfy reuse criteria, not only for outdoor
uses such as irrigation but also for indoor uses such as toilet flushing,
in order to compete with other simpler systems. Indeed, during this
study it was found that SMBR is an effective grey water treatment sys-
tem, producing recycled water suitable for toilet flushing. The feasibility
of a SMBR system for grey water treatment in single houses depends on
fresh water and sewage disposal cost (more than €10 m−3).

Aegean island Mainland

Acknowledgments
MBR + No MBR + No
UV invest UV invest
This research has been co-financed by the European Union
Cost (European Social Fund – ESF 2007–2013, Grant Number MIS 380040)
Investment (€) 4050 0 4050 0
and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education
Operational (€ y−1) 186 0 186 0
Fresh water and sewage fees (€ y−1) 0 530 0 265 and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework
Total cash value (€) 6232 6232 13509 13509 (NSRF 2007–2013, Grant Number MIS 380040) - Research Funding
Annual cost (€) 603 603 462 462 Program THALES: Reinforcement of the interdisciplinary and/or inter-
Payback time (y) 12.6 – 71 – institutional research and innovation (acronym: Hydropolis).
a
Assuming grey water production of 53 m3 y−1.
 M.S. Fountoulakis et al. / Science of the Total Environment 551–552 (2016) 706–711 711

Appendix A. Supplementary data Kadewa, W.W., Le Corre, K., Pidou, M., Jeffrey, P.J., Jefferson, B., 2010. Comparison of grey
water treatment performance by a cascading sand filter and a constructed wetland.
Water Sci. Technol. 62, 1471–1478.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx. Krishnan, V., Ahmad, D., Jeru, J.B., 2008. Influence of COD:N:P ratio on dark greywater
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.057. treatment using a sequencing batch reactor. J Chem Technol Biot 83, 756–762.
Krzeminski, P., Iglesias-Obelleiro, A., Madebo, G., Garrido, J.M., Van der Graaf, J.H.J.M., Van
Lier, J.B., 2012. Impact of temperature on raw wastewater composition and activated
sludge filterability in full-scale MBR systems for municipal sewage treatment.
References
J. Membr. Sci. 423, 348–361.
Lamine, M., Bousselmi, L., Ghrabi, A., 2007. Biological treatment of grey water using se-
ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics 4602.0-Environmental Issues: People's Views and
quencing batch reactor. Desalination 215, 127–132.
Practices, March 2007. Common wealth of Australia, Canberra.
Lazarova, V., Hills, S., Birks, R., 2003. Using recycled water for non-potable, urban uses: a
Almeida, M.C., Butler, D., Friedler, E., 1999. At-source domestic wastewater quality. Urban
review with particular reference to toilet flushing. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 3
Water 1, 49–55.
(4), 69–77.
Antonopoulou, C., Kirkou, A., Stasinakis, A.S., 2013. Quantitative greywater characterisa-
Leal, H.L., Soeter, A.M., Kools, S.A.E., Kraak, M.H.S., Parsons, J.R., Temmink, H., Zeeman, G.,
tion in Greek households and investigation of their treatment using physicochemical
Buisman, C.J.N., 2012. Ecotoxicological assessment of grey water treatment systems
methods. Sci Total Environ 454–455, 426–432.
with Daphnia magna and Chironomus riparius. Water Res. 46, 1038–1044.
APHA, AWWA, WEF, 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-
Lesjean, B., Gnirss, R., 2006. Grey water treatment with a membrane bioreactor operated
water. American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Associa-
at low SRT and low HRT. Desalination 199, 432–434.
tion (AWWA), and Water Environment Federation (WEF).
Li, F., Wichmann, K., Otterpohl, R., 2009. Review of the technological approaches for grey
Bani-Melhem, K., Al-Qodah, Z., Al-Shannag, M., Qasaimeh, A., Rasool Qtaishat, M.,
water treatment and reuses. Sci. Total Environ. 407, 3439–3449.
Alkasrawi, M., 2015. On the performance of real grey water treatment using a sub-
Lin, C.J., Lo, S.L., Kuo, C.Y., Wu, C.H., 2005. Pilot-scale electrocoagulation with bipolar alu-
merged membrane bioreactor system. J. Membr. Sci. 476, 40–49.
minium electrodes for on-site domestic greywater reuse. J. Environ. Eng. 131,
BS-8525-2, Greywater Systems Part 2: Domestic Greywater Treatment Equipment, Re-
491–495.
quirements and Test Methods. Issued by the British Standards Institution, London,
Liu, R., Huang, X., Chen, L., Wen, X., Qian, Y., 2005. Operational performance of a sub-
UK, ISBN 978 0 580 63 476 5. BSI, p-32, 2011.
merged membrane bioreactor for reclamation of bath wastewater. Process Biochem.
Charalambous K, Bruggeman A, Lange MA. Policies for Improving Water Security, the Case
40, 125–130.
of Cyprus. CLICO-Climate Change. Hydro-conflicted and Human Security. Working
March, J.G., Gual, M., Orozco, F., 2004. Experiences on greywater re-use for toilet flushing
Package 4, contract number: SSH-CT-2010-244443, 2011.
in a hotel (Mallorca Island, Spain). Desalination 164, 241–247.
Chiemchaisri, C., Yamamoto, K., 1994. Performance of membrane separation bioreactor at
Merz, C., Scheumann, R., Hamouri, B.E., Kraume, M., 2007. Membrane bioreactor technol-
various temperatures for domestic wastewater treatment. J. Membr. Sci. 87, 119–129.
ogy for the treatment of greywater from a sports and leisure club. Desalination 215,
Christova-Boal, D., Eden, R.E., McFarlane, S., 1996. An investigation into greywater reuse
37–43.
for urban residential properties. Desalination 106, 391–397.
Nolde, E., 1999. Greywater reuse systems for toilet flushing in multi-storey buildings—
Comino, E., Riggio, V., Rosso, M., 2013. Grey water treated by an hybrid constructed wet-
over ten years experience in Berlin. Urban Water 1, 275–284.
land pilot plant under several stress conditions. Ecol. Eng. 53, 120–125.
Ogoshi, M., Suzuki, Y., Asano, T., 2001. Water reuse in Japan. Water Sci. Technol. 43,
Eriksson, E., Aufarth, K., Henze, M., Ledin, A., 2002. Characteristics of grey wastewater.
17–23.
Urban Water 4, 85–104.
Oron, G., Adel, M., Agmon, V., Friedler, E., Halperin, R., Leshem, E., Weinberg, D., 2014.
Eriksson, E., Andersen, H., Madsen, S., Ledin, A., 2009. Greywater pollution variability and
Greywater use in Israel and worldwide: standards and prospects. Water Res. 58,
loadings. Ecol. Eng. 35, 661–669.
92–101.
Friedler, E., 2004. Quality of individual domestic greywater streams and its implication for
Pidou, M., 2006. Hybrid Membrane Process for Water Reuse PhD thesis Cranfield
onsite treatment and reuse possibilities. Environ. Technol. 25, 997–1008.
University.
Friedler, E., Hadari, M., 2006. Economic feasibility of on-site grey water reuse in multi-sto-
Pidou, M., Avery, L., Stephenson, T., Jeffrey, P., Parsons, S.A., Liu, S., Memon, F.A., Jefferson,
rey buildings. Desalination 202 (1–3), 293–301.
B., 2008. Chemical solutions for greywater recycling. Chemosphere 7, 147–155.
Gabarro, J., Batchelli, L., Balaguer, M.D., Puig, S., Colprim, J., 2013. Grey water treatment at
Pinto, U., Maheshwari, B.L., 2010. Reuse of greywater for irrigation around homes in
a sports centre for reuse in irrigation: a case study. Environ. Technol. 34, 1385–1392.
Australia: understanding community views, issues and practices. Urban Water J 7,
Ghunmi, L.A., Zeeman, G., Fayyad, M., Van Lier, J.B., 2011. Grey water treatment systems: a
141–153.
review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 657–698.
Pochana, K., Keller, J., 1999. Study of factors affecting simultaneous nitrification and deni-
Government of Western Australia, Guidelines for the Non-potable Uses of Recycled Water
trification (SND). Water Sci. Technol. 39, 61–68.
in Western Australia. Department of Health, Australia, p-99, 2011.
Santasmasas, C., Rovira, M., Clarens, F., Valderrama, C., 2013. Grey water reclamation by
Halalsheh, M., Dalahmeh, S., Sayed, M., Suleiman, W., Shareef, M., Mansour, M., Safi, M.,
decentralized MBR prototype. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 72, 102–107.
2008. Grey water characteristics and treatment options for rural areas in Jordan.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2004. Guidelines for Water Reuse. USEPA,
Bioresour. Technol. 99, 6635–6641.
Washington, DC, USA, 2004, Report EPA/625/R-04/108.
Huelgas, A., Funamizu, N., 2010. Flat-plate submerged membrane bioreactor for the treat-
Winward, G.P., Avery, L.M., Frazer-Williams, R., Pidou, M., Jeffrey, P., Stephenson, T.,
ment of higher-load greywater. Desalination 250, 162–166.
Jefferson, B., 2008. A study of the microbial quality of grey water and an evaluation
Jabornig, S., 2013. Overview and feasibility of advanced grey water treatment systems for
of treatment technologies for reuse. Ecol. Eng. 32, 187–197.
single households. Urban Water J. 11, 361–369.
Yu, Z.L., Rahardianto, A., DeShazo, J., Stenstrom, M.K., Cohen, Y., 2013. Critical review: reg-
Jabornig, S., Favero, E., 2013. Single household greywater treatment with a moving bed
ulatory incentives and impediments for onsite graywater reuse in the United States.
biofilm membrane reactor (MBBMR). J. Membr. Sci. 446, 277–285.
Water Environ Res 85, 650–662.
Jefferson, B., Laine, A., Parsons, S., Stephenson, T., Judd, S., 2000. Membrane bioreactors
and their role in wastewater reuse. Water Sci. Technol. 41, 197–204.