Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 973–978

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

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

Design of a modified low cost treatment system for the recycling and
reuse of laundry waste water
Jamil Ahmad ∗ , Hisham EL-Dessouky
Department of Chemical Engineering, N.W.F.P. University of Engineering & Technology Peshawar, Pakistan

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

Article history: A low cost system was designed for the recycling and reuse of waste water from a laundry unit. The
Received 29 August 2007 unit was associated with a petroleum refinery in Pakistan. A survey was made to check the quantity and
Received in revised form 3 March 2008 quality of waste water generated. The unit was discharging 1.90 m3 /day of waste water into the natural
Accepted 5 March 2008
water course. A small size sand and gravel filter was made from 0.00125 m sand, 0.0125 and 0.025 m
Available online 2 May 2008
gravels. The sand and two sizes of gravels were arranged in three layers. Each layer was 0.10 m deep.
The three layers were placed in a stainless steel hopper and waste water was passed through the filter.
Keywords:
Both, the waste water and treated water were analyzed and compared with tap water. The physical and
Low cost treatment system
Laundry waste water
chemical parameters considered were pH, turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids
Recycling (TDS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total hardness (TH) and iron
Reuse contents. The results showed that the filtration process reduced the pH, turbidity, TH and TSS to acceptable
Filtration limit and TDS to some extent. On the other hand it had negligible effect on COD and BOD. The treated
Sedimentation water was ranked as low-grade water and was found to be suitable for use in the laundry unit for the first
rinse only. Based on the obtained results large-scale treatment process was designed for the waste water.
It was a low cost treatment system consisting of sedimentation and filtration. It was found that the total
capital and operating cost per year of the system was US$ 1343. The daily saving of water was 1.80 m3
with a payback period of only 1 year in one case and half year in the second case. In the first case the price
of fresh water was taken as US$ 2.2/m3 and in the second case as US$ 4.4/m3 .
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Treated water is a carefully manufactured product, which
reaches our homes only after passing through an extensive treat-
ment process. It is a valuable resource that should not be wasted.
Just 1% of the entire water supply in the world is available for human
use and the remaining water is salty or locked in ice cape and
glaciers (Eldessouky et al., 2002). This very small amount of water
keeps the entire world’s agricultural, manufacturing, community
and personal household demands. About 1% of all treated water
used at homes is used for drinking and the rest is used for washing
machines, toilets, showers, watering lawns. There is a growing need
to conserve this huge amount of water for various purposes. Recy-
Abbreviations: TSS, total suspended solid; TDS, total dissolved solid; BOD, bio-
chemical oxygen demand; COD, chemical oxygen demand; TH, total hardness; NTU,
nephlometric turbidity unit; ppm, parts per million; RCC, roller compacted con-
crete; GPD, gallon per day; GPM, gallon per minute; SG, specific gravity; BHP, break
horse power; Q, volumetric flow rate; kWh, kilowatt hour; PVC, polyvinylchloride;
SS, stainless steel.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +92 91 9218180.
E-mail address: engrjamilahmad@yahoo.com (J. Ahmad).
cling and reuse for coping with shortages of water is a viable mean
in arid and semi-arid regions and in highly populated areas. Wash
water used in laundry contains higher chemical concentrations
such as sodium, phosphate, boron, surfactants, ammonia, and nitro-
gen. It is high in suspended solids, turbidity and oxygen demand.
Discharge of this untreated water can lead to environmental dam-
age as well as it can pose a threat to public health. The concept of
three R’s, i.e. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle is a part of cleaner pro-
duction that concentrates on pollution prevention at source rather
than the end of pipe treatment. In other words, it is vitally impor-
tant to treat waste water in order to save water as a precious source
and protect the environment from pollution.
Bruvoll et al. (2002) investigated that in most high income coun-
tries, the waste recycling rates have risen sharply over the past 15
years. In Norway the share of household waste that was delivered
for material recovery increased from 8% to 33% during the period
1992–1998. The results for a case study of Milton Keynes in cen-
tral England (Craighill and Powell, 1996) have shown that recycling
system generally performs better than the waste disposal system in
terms of contribution to global warming, acidification effects and
nitrification of surface water. It was also found that the econom-
ical benefits of recycling is US$ 3656 for aluminum, US$ 492 for

0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.03.001
974 J. Ahmad, H. EL-Dessouky / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 973–978
steel, US$ 550 for paper, US$ 388 for glass, net costs of US$ 5.31 for
high density polyethylene (HDPE), US$ 8.47 for polyvinylchloride
(PVC) and US$ 15 for polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Bruggen
and Braeken (2006) cited that reusing waste water streams as an
input for less demanding installations is a step towards a zero-
discharge system. The results obtained (Brunori et al., 2005) are
encouraging in view of the possibility to reuse treated red mud
for environmental purposes in remediation activities. The product
recycled water (Sandrolini and Franzoni, 2001) had a solid content
up to 40 g/l, which is quite close to the limit of 50 g/l in ASTM C94,
give mortars and concretes having 28-day compressive strengths
in no way lower than 96% in comparison with clear water, 90%
is the minimum allowed by prEN 1008, and in some cases even
higher.
Treated and recycled water (Gunther, 2000) was found slightly
polluted and was reused for hand and dishwashing purposes. Dilek
et al. (2003) found that waste water treatment facility through
modifying and redesigning in Amasya sugar factory resulted in
66% reduction in water consumption and a decrease of sludge from
250 to 85 m3 /h. Buchheister et al. (2006) treated waste water from
laundry unit in a two step process, i.e. screening and membrane
cleaning. It was recycled and reused for the laundry washing pro-
cess. The waste water treatment unit was connected to a washing
machine in which all kind of relevant textile had been treated.
Chang and Chung (2000) recovered ammonia in the waste water
generated from ammonium chloride manufacturing by modify-
ing the existing process using ion exchange method. The process
modification appeared to have some advantages over the con-
ventional waste water treatment process in terms of recovering
valuable materials from waste water and improving the effluent
water quality. Consequently, the process was found feasible for
cleaner production of NH4 Cl.
The East Anglia waste minimization in the Food and Drink Indus-
try Project (Hyde et al., 2001) demonstrated that waste reduction of
12% of raw materials can be achieved. This makes significant contri-
butions to company profitability by reducing costs associated with
waste disposal. The huge production of poultry waste has led to
intensive research in the fields of waste recycling and bioengineer-
ing aspects of this solid waste treatment. In recent years, poultry
manure has been used directly or after transformation by chemical
(acidification) or physical (heating) processes in feed formulations
(Jalil et al., 2001). A two step nanofiltration process was devel-
oped to recycle industrial waste water after the removal of color
in the AZKO Nobel Chemicals Netherland. The process was able
to recover 90% of the waste stream and reduce the color content
with 99.8% (Frank et al., 2002). Braeken et al. (2004) investigated
that nanofiltration membrane can be used for recycling and treat-
ment of the brewery waste water. In order to conserve natural
resources and reduce production costs, a novel process to process
water recycling system was developed by Wu et al. (2004) for a
semiconductor integrated circuits (IC) manufacturing process. The
pilot-scale system, consisting of ultrafilteration (UF) followed by a
polishing loop, was able to produce low-grade high purity water
HPW (4.5 m3 /h) from the waste water discharged from wafer back-
grinding and sawing processes with an overall recovery rate of 90%.
The research carried out by Cheryan and Rajagopalan (1998) on
the use of membrane filtration to treat oil–water emulsion showed
that membranes are more feasible when used for recycling of valu-
able material, e.g. recycling aqueous cleaners and machine coolants.
Amahmid et al. (1999) showed that the nutrient content of waste
water have fertilizer value for many crops and contribute to the
improvement of soil properties. Waste water recycling supplied
by renewable energy was analyzed by Melib et al. (1998) and was
found suitable for systems having low power demands. Elela et al.
(2006) investigated that pollution prevention and waste minimiza-
tion in a chemical industrial company producing poly sulfonated
formaldehyde proved to be cost effective and have short payback
periods. Hunhammar (1995) concluded from his research that the
expected changes in transportation due to increased reuse and
recycling is not a general hindrance against introducing a more
cyclic material management. Kim et al. (2005) investigated that
the nanofiltration and reverse osmosis (RO) membrane combined
process was found suitable for the removal of residual organics,
color, salt, and the water recycling from waste stream arising from
reactive dye manufacturing process. The permeate can be recycled
back into the process, thus offering economical benefits by reduc-
ing the water consumption and waste water treatment cost. The
research carried out by Hird (2006) showed that the water con-
sumption of blue scoop steel has reduced and water efficiency
has increased as a result of recycling schemes within a period
of 10 years. Al-Zubari (1998) concluded from his research that
every drop of water must be carefully used and no higher qual-
ity water should be used for a purpose that can tolerate a lower
quality.
It was concluded from the literature survey that to the best of our
knowledge, there is no specific information available about the low
cost treatment system for laundry waste water. Moreover recycling
and reuse of the waste resources was found practicable round the
globe in various sectors of life.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Existing laundry system
The present adopted process for washing clothes in the laun-
dry house associated with a petroleum refinery was studied and
data was taken about the total consumption of water and gener-
ation of waste water on 24 h basis. In Fig. 1 the bold lines show
the existing process including piping, storage and washing tanks.
Water for the laundry house is supplied from the refinery main
water reservoir and is stored in the existing water supply tank,
which is labeled as T1 . This tank serves as a primary storage tank
for the laundry unit and has a capacity of 3.785 m3 . The tank is
situated at a height of 5 m from the ground. From here water is
distributed and used inside the laundry house. T2 is a secondary
storage tank, which is present at the ground for easy access and has
a capacity of 0.36 m3 gal. T3 is used for heating water and works
as a kiln. T4 is used for bleaching the clothes while T5 and T6 are
used for first rinsing and T7 is used for final rinsing of the clothes.
There is also a first rinsing tank outside the laundry house for wash-
ing clothes. The existing process of washing clothes is described as
follows.
Dirty clothes including staff uniforms from the refinery and the
local hospital contaminated with dirt, oil and suspended particles
are collected inside the laundry house. Water is stored in the pri-
mary and secondary storage tanks. Then the water is heated in the
kiln to boiling temperature and soap or detergent is added in the
hot water to prepare a soap solution. The first rinsing tank and
the bleaching tank is filled with soap solution. The dirty clothes
are given first rinse in soap solution to remove the heavy contam-
ination. After removing heavy contamination the clothes are then
given a second rinse to remove any dirt and contamination in the
final rinse tank, which is also filled with soap solution, or bleach
solution depending upon the required service. After washing the
clothes the water containing dirt, soap and detergent is discharged
through a final drain as indicated in Fig. 1. The process is discharg-
ing 1.80 m3 to the nearby drain that is a loss to the refinery. Also
as the cost of water increases with the passage of time, this loss
becomes intolerable.
 J. Ahmad, H. EL-Dessouky / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 973–978 975

Fig. 1. Process flow diagram of a modified laundry waste water treatment system.

Table 1 total suspended solids (TSS), and total dissolved solids (TDS), chem-
Laboratory analysis of waste water during survey
ical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
S. no. Tests Waste water Tap water total hardness (TH) and iron contents. Results of the analysis were
1 pH 9.14 7.65
tabulated as Table 2. As the laboratory scale sedimentation and fil-
2 Temperature (◦ C) 27 30 tration results were favorable, therefore the process was applied
3 TSS (ppm) 422 3
4 TDS (ppm) 504 273
5 BOD (ppm) 39.02 3.02
6 COD (ppm) 340 60
7 Turbidity (NTU) 26.56 0
8 TH (ppm) 230 270

2.2. Laboratory analysis and design of a sand and gravel filter

The waste water was analyzed in the refinery quality control

laboratory (QCL) and compared with the tap water for priority
physical and chemical parameters to find out the level of contam-
ination and subsequent modification and design accordingly. The
data was tabulated in Table 1. A small size sand and gravel filter
(Fig. 2) was made in the refinery workshop. The filter was made
from three layers in a stainless steel hopper. Sand of size 0.00125 m
was placed at the bottom while gravels of size 0.0125 m in the mid-
dle and 0.025 m at the top. All the three layers had equal thickness
of 0.10 m.
Waste water was passed through it. The waste water and treated
water were analyzed and compared with tap water in the laboratory
for priority physical and chemical parameters like pH, turbidity,

Table 2
Laboratory analysis of waste water and filtered water

S. no. Tests Waste water Filtered water Tap water

1 pH 8.02 7.71 7.50

2 Temperature (◦ C) 30 28 30
3 TSS (ppm) 380 40 3.50
4 TDS (ppm) 540 380 250
5 BOD (ppm) 42 40 3.0
6 COD (ppm) 310 310 55
7 Turbidity (NTU) 10.27 2.40 0
8 TH (ppm) 240 150 262
9 Iron contents (ppm) 0.40 6 0 Fig. 2. Lab scale sand and gravel filter in a stainless steel hopper.
976 J. Ahmad, H. EL-Dessouky / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 973–978

Table 3
Dimensions of the existing system

Existing water supply tank (primary storage tank)

L1 (length) m 3.66
L2 (height) m 1.20
L3 (clearance) m 0.12
L4 (net height) m 1.08
L5 (width) m 1.19
V (volume) m3 4.70

Secondary storage tank

L1 (m) 0.71
L2 (m) 0.66
L3 (m) 0.76
V1 (m3 ) 0.36

(a) First rinsing tank (inside laundry house)

L1 (m) 0.76
L2 (m) 0.66
L3 (m) 0.61
V2 (m3 ) 0.30 × 2 = 0.60

(b) First rinsing tank (outside laundry house)

L1 (m) 1.1
L2 (m) 0.99
L3 (m) 0.61
V3 (m3 ) 0.66

(c) Final rinsing tank

L1 (m) 0.91 Fig. 3. Sand and gravel filter for the treatment plant.
L2 (m) 0.91
L3 (m) 0.53
V4 (m3 ) 0.44 The sand and gravel filter is shown in Fig. 3. It has three layers each
one with a depth of 0.33 m. Sand of size 0.00125 m is at the bottom
(d) Bleaching tank
L1 (m) 0.91
while gravels of size 0.0125 m in the middle and 0.025 m at the top.
L2 (m) 0.46 A space of 0.23 m depth is left open for maintaining water level at
L3 (m) 0.23 the top of the filter and to avoid any possible overflow. Motor and
V5 (m3 ) 0.096 pump required are calculated for the given duty and is shown in
Total waste water generated per day from tanks (a–d) = 1.80 m3 . Table 5.

on large scale to the actual situation and treatment system was 3. Results and discussion
designed for the waste water.
Samples of waste water and tap water were taken and analyzed
for the physical and chemical parameters to check the quality of
2.3. Modified laundry system
waste water and subsequently use the data for the selection of treat-
ment process. The data is reported in Table 1. The data reveals that
The dotted lines in Fig. 1 show the modified design setup for
the water is alkaline in nature. The TDS and TSS of waste water
the laundry house. The waste water is diverted to the treatment
is also high and it is due to soap and dirt contaminations. The
pit where sedimentation and filtration is carried out. After this
high content of TSS and TDS are also responsible for higher COD
the low-grade treated water is stored in the treated water storage
and BOD. TSS, pH and turbidity can be decreased by sedimenta-
tank, which is labeled as T8 . It is proposed to buy a storage tank
tion and filtration. TDS and TH are normally brought to low level
from the market for this purpose. The cost of the storage tank for
with RO or elector dialysis while COD and BOD can be reduced
5.68 m3 capacity is US$ 500. The water is then supplied to different
with aeration. The refinery top management was not willing to
places inside the laundry house for the first rinse of the dirty and
allow us the use of expensive methods of RO or any other biologi-
contaminated clothes. Dimensions of the existing laundry system
including tanks and piping are taken and tabulated as Table 3. From
this we calculated the total consumption of water and waste water
Table 5
discharged during 24 h. The total waste water as calculated from Pump and motor requirement
the survey is 1.80 m3 per day. Treatment pit is designed for one
and a half day storage capacity thereby design volume calculated is S. no. Parameters Value

2.70 m3 . Dimensions of the required systems is reported in Table 4. 1 Total waste water generated 1.80 m3
2 Design volume (50% excess) 2.70 m3
3 The required pump capacity supposing 0.045 m3 /min
Table 4 the pump is operated 1 h daily to
Dimensions of the required system discharge 2.7 m3
4 Head required 15.24 m
S. no. Parameters Value
5 SG (water with soap content) 1.50
1 Total waste water generated per day 1.80 m3 6 Pump efficiency (E) 0.80
(from Table 3) 7 BHP required = (Q in GPM × H in 0.35 = 0.50 (approximately)
2 Design volume required for one and a 1.80 × 1.5 = 2.70 m3 m × 3.28 × SG)/(3960 × E)
half day storage 8 Power required (kW) 0.373
3 Water pit required (Table 6) 1.52 × 1.52 × 1.22 = 2.82 m3 9 Daily energy consumption 0.373 kWh
4 Filtration pit required (Table 6) 0.30 × 1.52 × 1.22 = 0.56 m3 10 Yearly energy consumption 135 kWh
5 Total actual volume 3.38 m3 11 Cost of electricity @ US$ 0.05/kWh US$ 6.75/year
 J. Ahmad, H. EL-Dessouky / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 973–978 977

Table 6
Cost of treatment system

S. no. Materials Quantity Unit cost (US $) Total cost (US $)

1 Pipe length with fitting (SS) 39.62 m 5.08/m 201

2 Pipe length with fitting (PVC) 0.33 m 12.19 m 2.18/m 26.60

3 Foot valve 1 13 13

4 Pump and motor 1 16 16

5 Stainer (sand and gravel) 1 83 83

6 Excavation 1.52 × 1.52 × 1.22 = 2.82 m3

1.176/m 3 3.97
1.52 × 0.30 × 1.22 = 0.56 m3
Total = 2.82 + 0.56 = 3.38 m3

7 (a) RCC construction walls 1.52 × 0.406 × 1.22 × 4 = 3 m3 (water pit) 52.93/m3 255
1.52 × 0.406 × 1.22 = 0.75 m3 (filtration pit)
0.30 × 1.22 × 0.406 = 0.15 m3 (filtration pit)
(b) Base (1.52 + 0.30) × 1.52 × 0.18 = 0.50 m3
(c)Top 1.52 × 1.52 × 0.18 = 0.41 m3
Total (a + b + c) 4.81 m3

8 Steel 400 kg 0.58/kg 232

3
9 Treated water tank 5.68 m 500 500

10 Total capital cost 1336

11 Total operating (electricity) cost 135 kWh 0.05/kWh 6.75

12 Total cost 1343

cal method for the removal of TDS, COD and BOD. Also detergents tanks is calculated by taking their dimensions and hence their sum
are non-biodegradable and cannot be removed easily. Therefore we is taken as the quantity of waste water generated per day from the
planned to use water after treatment inside the laundry house as laundry unit.
low quality water for first rinse of clothes for which there is no The volume calculated in Table 3 is used to find out the design
need of high quality water. For that purpose only sedimentation volume for the treatment plant and the calculated design volume
and filtration is considered sufficient to remove TSS, turbidity and with 50% design factor was 2.70 m3 the dimensions of the water pit
pH. and filtration pit are adjusted to accommodate the design volume
Table 2 shows the laboratory test results of waste water and to the nearest value. The total actual volume is found to be 3.38 m3 .
filtered water. The results are compared with tap water for analy- The results are depicted in Table 4. Table 5 shows the pump and
sis and to check any possible improvement in the quality of waste motor requirements for the given duty. If we operate the pump 1 h
water with the proposed treatment method. per day to pump all the filtered water to the treated water stor-
The data has shown that sedimentation and filtration improved age tank then the calculated required pump capacity is 0.057 m3 .
the quality of waste water to be used for the first rinse of clothes. For this capacity of pump the motor should be of 373 W (0.50 hp).
pH is reduced from 8.02 to 7.71, TSS from 380 to 40 ppm, TDS from The total electricity cost is calculated as US$ 6.75 per year. Table 6
540 to 380 ppm and TH reduced from 240 to 150 ppm. The iron reveals the total cost of the treatment system including the cost
content is increased from 0.4 to 6.0 ppm. This is due to the fact that of pipe length with fittings, pump and motor, strainer, excavation,
stainless steel is used as a material of construction in the labora- RCC construction, treated water storage tank, steel used and the
tory filter. Therefore PVC pipe is suggested for the transport of soapy operating cost due to electricity. PVC pipe is used to transport the
and alkaline waste water to the treatment pit in order to reduce the waste water from the laundry house to the treatment plant while
risk of pipeline corrosion and subsequent increase in iron content stainless steel pipe was used for the transport of the treated water
in the treated water. Table 3 is used to represent the dimensions to the treated water tank. The total cost of the system is the sum of
of the existing system used for the laundry unit. All the calcula- total capital cost and total operating cost and is calculated as US$
tion is done to find out the quantity of waste water generated from 1443. Table 7 shows the very important of all, which is the pay-
the laundry unit which is a second prerequisite after water quality back period. The payback period is an excellent measuring index to
for the design of waste water treatment system. During the survey
the total daily water consumption and water used for washing was
Table 7
inquired from the laundry personals. From their information we
Payback period
came to know that the laundry unit is using one full tank of water
per day for all the purposes including toilet, cooking, drinking, etc. Parameters Value
All the dimensions of the existing water supply tank are taken and Case 1
the volume of the tank is calculated as 4.70 m3 . The water supply Cost of water US$ 2.2/m3
tank is situated at a height and water is stored for the washing Total water recycled (saved) per day 1.80 m3
Cost of water saved US$ 3.96/day
purpose in a primary storage tank. Although this tank is not used US$ 1445/year
in our further calculation to find out the total waste water gener- Payback period 1343/1445 = 1 year (approximately)
ated, however it is reported as a part of the existing system. It was
Case 2
reported by the residents that they are using two first rinsing water Cost of water US$ 4.4 m3
tank of water inside and one first rinsing water tank of water out- Total water recycled (saved) per day 1.80 m3
side the laundry house, one final rinsing water tank of water and Cost of water saved US$ 7.92/day = US$ 2890/year
one bleaching water tank of water per day. Volume of all the five Payback period 1343/2890 = 0.5 year (approximately)
978 J. Ahmad, H. EL-Dessouky / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 973–978
give us the net benefit from installing any new equipment or treat-
ment plant. It tells us the time period in which the total expenditure
on the proposed equipment or treatment system can be recovered
from the benefit it gives in terms of capital. Short payback periods
are wanted and vice versa. In industry this parameter is consid-
ered very important by the management in decision-making. It is
calculated from the total expenditures on the plant and the saving
of money it can give us. As the price of water supply is fluctuat-
ing from time to time therefore two different prices of US$ 2.2/m3
and US$ 4.4/m3 are taken for the calculation of payback period. The
source of the water used for calculation is the tube well and it is
distributed and sold in the nearby area with the above-mentioned
price. The calculated payback period is 1 year in one case and half
year in the second case. Both the values are considered very low and
favorable.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
The designed laundry waste water treatment system using sed-
imentation and filtration was able to give a diluted solution of soap
and detergent, which is suitable for first rinse of the dirty clothes
only. The process is able to remove only turbidity, TSS, pH and TH
to acceptable limit, reduce TDS to some extent and have almost no
effect on COD and BOD. At such a small-scale installation it is not
feasible to carry out any chemical or biological reaction. The blood-
contaminated clothes from the hospital should not be washed in
this system. An appropriate disinfectant complying with the used
detergent should be added to achieve proper disinfection of the
hospital textiles. The content of surfactant is yet to be measured as
it plays an important role in reused water. Use of excessive amount
of surfactants can cause problems with linen. Moreover research
should be continued in the area of recycling and reuse to properly
utilize our resources and reduce the load on waste water treat-
ment plants. This will give us economic benefit as well as save our
environment.
Acknowledgement
The research was funded by the Attock Oil Refinery Limited
Rawalpindi Pakistan through National Cleaner Production Centre,
which is a project of United Nation Development Program (UNDP)
in Pakistan.
References
Al-Zubari WK. Towards the establishment of a total water cycle management and
reuse program in the GCC countries. Desalination 1998;120:3–14.
Amahmid O, Asmama S, Bouhoum K. The effect of waste water reuse in irrigation
on the contamination level of food crops by Giardia cysts and Ascaris eggs. Int J
Food Microbiol 1999;49:19–26.
Braeken L, Bruggen BV, Vandecasteele C. Regeneration of brewery waste water using
nanofiltration. Water Res 2004;38:3075–82.
Bruggen BV, Braeken L. The challenge of zero discharge from water balance to regen-
eration. Desalination 2006;188:177–83.
Brunori C, Cremisini C, Massanisso P, Pinto V, Torricelli L. Reuse of a treated red mud
bauxite waste studies on environmental compatibility. J Hazard Mater 2005;B
117:55–63.
Bruvoll A, Halvorsen B, Nyborg K. Household recycling efforts. Resour Conserv Recycl
2002;36:337–54.
Buchheister F, Hoinkis J, Muth S, Panten V. Liwatec–laundry innovative waste water
recycling technology. Desalination 2006;199:76–7.
Chang IS, Chung CM. Pollution prevention for manufacturing of ammonium chloride,
an experimental study of wastewater recycling. Desalination 2000;127:145–53.
Cheryan M, Rajagopalan N. Membrane processing of oily streams. Wastewater treat-
ment and waste reduction. J Membr Sci 1998;151:13–28.
Craighill AL, Powell JC. Life cycle assessment and economic evaluation of recycling:
a case study. Resour Conserv Recycl 1996;17:75–96.
Dilek FB, Yetis U, Gokcay F. Water savings and sludge minimization in a beet sugar
factory through re-design of the waste water treatment facility. J Cleaner Prod
2003;11:327–31.
Eldessouky, H. et al., 2002 http://elsevier.com.
Elela SIA, Haleem HA, Taleb EA, Ibrahim HS. Application of cleaner production tech-
nology in chemical industry a near zero emission. J Cleaner Prod 2006;xx:1–7.
Frank MJW, Westerink JB, Schokker A. Recycling of industrial waste water by
using a two-step nanofiltration process for the removal of color. Desalination
2002;145:69–74.
Gunther F. Wastewater treatment by grey water separation. Outline for a biologically
based grey water purification plant in Sweden. Ecol Eng 2000;15:139–46.
Hird W. Recycled water case study. Blue scope steel Port Kembla Steelworks. Desali-
nation 2006;188:97–103.
Hunhammar S. Potential for increased transportation demands due to recycling of
materials in Sweden. Resour Conserv Recycl 1995;15:21–31.
Hyde K, Smith A, Smith M, Henningsn S. The challenge of waste minimization in the
food and drink industry, a demonstration project in East Anglia UK. J Cleaner
Prod 2001;9:57–64.
Jalil MHE, Faid M, Elyachioui M. A biotechnological process for treatment and
recycling poultry wastes manure as a feed ingredient. Biomass Bioenergy
2001;21:301–9.
Kim TH, Park C, Kim S. Water recycling from desalination and purification process of
reactive dye manufacturing industry by combined membrane filtration. J Cleaner
Prod 2005;13:779–86.
Melib PDM, Neskakis DA, Marliani DPJP, Lange DI, Hovelmann DIA, Schumacher DIJ.
Waste water recycling supplied by renewable energies based conditions and
possible treatment technologies. Renewable Energy 1998;14(1–4):325–31.
Sandrolini F, Franzoni E. Waste wash water recycling in ready-mixed concrete plants.
Cement Concrete Res 2001;31:485–9.
Wu M, Sun D, Tay JH. Process-to-process recycling of high purity water from semi
conductor wafer backgrinding wastes. Resour Conserv Recycl 2004;41:119–32.