RESEARCH

GREY WATER RECYCLING FOR REUSE IN TOILET

FLUSHING: A CASE STUDY IN THAILAND

Wannawit Taemthong1

ABSTRACT
Grey water from washbasins represents the least polluted source of waste water in

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/1/73/1770247/1943-4618_13_1_73.pdf by Indonesia user on 25 May 2023

households and buildings. This research study investigated three alternatives in recy-
cling grey water from washbasins for reuse in toilet flushing systems. Grey water was
collected from the washbasins of a nine-storey university building. The water was
treated employing three distinct treatment systems in order to determine the most
appropriate system when reusing such water in flushing systems. The grey water
treatment systems under scrutiny were composed of a sedimentation tank, a 24-hour
aeration tank and a sand and carbon filtering tank, functioning in conjunction with
a final sedimentation tank. The water quality from the selected treatment system
had TSS, BOD5, and Turbidity measures of 1.67 mg/l, 3.33 mg/l, and 3.33 NTU,
respectively. Fecal coliform bacteria and E. Coli were not found in the treated water.
Efficiency measures in reducing TSS, BOD5, and Turbidity were 93%, 75%, and
91%, respectively. Fifty-five toilet users were interviewed during the experiment, sixty
nine percent of which reported that the recycled water was comparable to tap water.
In conclusion, this research recommends treating grey water from washbasins and
reusing it in flushing systems in order to deploy water more efficiently in buildings.

KEYWORDS
building; grey water; recycle; washbasin; water efficiency

INTRODUCTION
Grey water refers to water which is slightly contaminated by human activities, but may be
reused after suitable treatment (Liu et al., 2010). It derives from domestic washing from activi-
ties involving the use of washbasins, showers, baths, kitchen sinks, and washing machines, but
excludes black water sourced from toilets and urinals (Jefferson et al., 1999; Liu et al., 2010).
Using recycled grey water potentially enables practitioners to promote the preservation of high
quality fresh water supplies and reduce pollutants in the environment, thus enabling reductions
in potable water ranging from 28.7% to 34.8% (Ghisi and Ferreira, 2007; Liu et al., 2010). On
site water treatment and the reuse of grey water represent the most interesting contemporary

1. King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Department of Civil Engineering, 1518 Pracharad 1 Rd., Bangsue, Bangkok,
10800, Thailand, [email protected].

Journal of Green Building 73

01_04_TaemthongResearch_6793.indd 73 2/20/18 8:54 AM

 issues within wastewater recycling (Fountoulakis et al., 2016). Grey water recycling is a valuable
alternative source of water for non-potable uses (Stec and Kordana, 2015). In this context, a uni-
versity in Iran used the application of trickling filters with plastic media and Lika aggregates in
treating grey water (Shamabadi et al., 2015). Chaillou et al. (2011) employed sand bed filtration,
granular activated carbon, and chlorine in treating grey water derived from households. Their
results were positive in terms of removing total suspended solids from treated water, reducing
30% of COD and significantly decreasing the microbial population. Zipf et al. (2016) studied
different types of treatment systems and found that water quality when passed through an
activated carbon filter after sand filtration was much better in terms of turbidity and surfactant
removal compared to alternative systems. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED), an acceptable practice in designing and building green buildings, demands a water
usage reduction of 20% as a prerequisite (USGBC, 2009). If water usage can be reduced more

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/1/73/1770247/1943-4618_13_1_73.pdf by Indonesia user on 25 May 2023

than 40%, a building can earn a maximum of four credits within the water efficiency criteria.
Waste water recycling, therefore, is considered intrinsic to designing effective green building
systems. When considering all sources of grey water, it has been found that grey water from
washbasins represents the least polluted source (Friedler, 2004). Toilet flushing was found to
consume the highest percentage of potable water in a study of a multi-story residential building
in Brazil, recording an average of 32.8% (Ghisi and Ferreira, 2007). Average domestic water
consumption in the UK is 150 litres per head per day (Sutherland, 2008). Thus, approximately
49 litres per person per day could potentially be saved by using recycled grey water. This saving
could be achieved by promoting the use of grey water in toilet flushing systems. However, to
avoid health risks, grey water should be treated at a higher standard before reuse (Li et al.,
2009). One objective of this research is, therefore, to find an appropriate grey water treatment
for reusing the water from washbasins in the flushing systems of men’s urinals and toilets.

METHODOLOGY
The research was conducted at King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok.
Grey water was collected from all washbasins from the second to ninth floors of a nine-storey
university building. The average grey water emission volumes are shown in Figure 1. Such
averaged values were recorded at thirty-minute intervals from 8:30 to 15:30. The daily average
discharge totalled 641 litres. Grey water discharge volumes are estimated roughly by measuring
water height increase in grey water collection tanks. The average volumes allowed us to select
an appropriate capacity treatment tank. In this case, an 800 litre tank was chosen.
The water was treated using three experimental systems in order to compare resultant water
quality. A suggested system, which offers the best water quality, will run continuously for one
subsequent month in order to observe water quality during two more tests. The three systems
have different components and costs, as shown in Table 1.
The schematic design of a full system is shown in Figure 2. Water is received from wash-
basins and collected in a grey water accumulation tank. At this point, the water collected is
tested to ascertain its quality in a laboratory and labeled as “before treatment.” Then, the water
was moved by pump and allowed to rest for 24 hours in a sedimentation tank. This water was
then pumped to an aeration tank and kept under aerated conditions for an additional 24 hours.
After this, the water was pumped to a sand and carbon filtering tank, containing two layers
of material—sand and carbon filters. Subsequently, the water was pumped to be stored in a

74 Volume 13, Number 1

01_04_TaemthongResearch_6793.indd 74 2/20/18 8:54 AM

 FIGURE 1. Grey Water Discharge Rates at Varying Times of Day.

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/1/73/1770247/1943-4618_13_1_73.pdf by Indonesia user on 25 May 2023

recycled water accumulation tank for later use in toilets and mens’ urinal flushing systems. The
water in the last accumulation tank was labeled as “after treatment” and was tested for quality.
Therefore, the grey water was collected twice within each system. Water was tested in a labora-
tory according to American Water Works Association guidelines covering the five parameters
of interest in this research. They comprise total suspended solids, fecal coliform bacteria, E.
Coli, BOD5, and turbidity.

TABLE 1. Components of Water Treatment Systems.

System
System Component
Name Descriptions Full Aerated Sedimentation
Accumulation tank 800 litres ✓ ✓ ✓
Sedimentation tank 800 litres ✓ X ✓
Aeration tank 800 litres with air pump ✓ ✓ X
Sand and carbon filter 20 cm. in Ø, 1.50 m. in ✓ ✓ ✓
tank height
Recycled water 800 litres ✓ ✓ ✓
accumulation tank
Total initial cost, $ 1,414 1,193 908

Journal of Green Building 75

01_04_TaemthongResearch_6793.indd 75 2/20/18 8:54 AM

 Figures 3 and 4 show the schematic designs of aerated and sedimentation systems, respec-
tively. They are similar to that employed in the full system. However, the aerated system does
not have a sedimentation tank, while a sedimentation system does employ an aeration tank.

RESULTS
Water was tested according to the standard methods for the examination of water and wastewa-
ter of the American Water Works Association 2012. Tables 2, 3, and 4 show details of the water
quality found in both the before and after treatments of the full, aerated, and sedimentation
systems, respectively. The full system necessitates the highest investment cost at $1,414, since it
comprises the full system of this research, as shown in Table 1. The use of this system resulted in
a reduction of suspended solid goods at a rate of 90%, BOD5 at –10%, and turbidity at 94%,

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/1/73/1770247/1943-4618_13_1_73.pdf by Indonesia user on 25 May 2023

as shown in Table 2. The most desirable characteristic of this system is its highest efficiency rates
in decreasing suspended solids and turbidity. However, BOD5 increased. The aerated system,
which does not utilize a 24 hour sedimentation tank, was able to reduce suspended solids at
90%, BOD5 at 78%, and turbidity at 75%. It incurs only a moderate investment cost of $1,193.
The most notable characteristic of this system is its highest efficiency in decreasing the volumes
of suspended solids and BOD5. On the other hand, efficiency in reducing turbidity is only
moderately acceptable. The sedimentation system involves the lowest investment cost at $908.
It does not necessitate an aeration tank, which constitutes the most expensive component in
the systems used in this research. When using this methodology, suspended solids were reduced
at a rate of 82%, BOD5 at 22%, and turbidity at 66%. However, fecal coliform bacteria and
E. Coli were still found in water after completing this treatment. Preliminary results show that
the aerated system was the most effective among the three alternatives. Therefore, the aerated
system was selected for one month observation. During this period, the water recycling system
ran every working day. The water quality values recorded are shown in Tables 5 and 6 for before
and after treatments, respectively.

FIGURE 2. Schematic Flow of Grey Water from Washbasins to Reuse in the Flushing of a Full
Treatment System.

76 Volume 13, Number 1

01_04_TaemthongResearch_6793.indd 76 2/20/18 8:54 AM

 FIGURE 3. Schematic Flow of Grey Water from Washbasins to Reuse in the Flushing of an
Aerated Treatment System.

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/1/73/1770247/1943-4618_13_1_73.pdf by Indonesia user on 25 May 2023

FIGURE 4. Schematic Flow of Grey Water from Washbasins to Reuse in the Flushing of a
Sedimentation Treatment System.

Two more water samples were collected at the grey water accumulation tank. The water
quality values recorded during this one month observation are labeled as test two and three, as
shown in Table 5. Another two water samples were collected from the recycled water accumula-
tion tank. They were tested and their water qualities shown in Table 6. The average efficiency
rates of the aerated system in reducing SS, BOD5, and Turbidity were measured at 93.04%,
75.02%, and 90.92%, respectively. Water quality parameters after the treatment of the aerated
system are compared with certain country standards and shown in Table 7. The quality of the
aerated system would be acceptable in Germany and New South Wales of Australia for reuse in

Journal of Green Building 77

01_04_TaemthongResearch_6793.indd 77 2/20/18 8:54 AM

 TABLE 2. Grey Water Quality Before and After Treatment of the Full System.

Before Treatment After Treatment

Visual Values of each Visual Values of each
Test Parameter Unit characteristic parameter characteristic parameter
1. Suspended mg/L White colour 31 Clear with 3
Solids water with no colour
turbidity and water and no
2. Fecal MPN/100 mL Not Found Not Found
suspended suspended
Coliform
solids solids
Bacteria
3. E. Coli MPN/100 mL Not Found Not Found

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/1/73/1770247/1943-4618_13_1_73.pdf by Indonesia user on 25 May 2023

4. BOD5 mg/L 10 11
5. Turbidity NTU 47 3

TABLE 3. Grey Water Quality Before and After Treatment of the Aerated System.

Before Treatment After Treatment

Visual Values of each Visual Values of each
Test Parameter Unit characteristic parameter characteristic parameter
1. Suspended mg/L Yellow clear 20 Clear with no 2
Solids water with colour water
suspended with suspended
2. Fecal MPN/100 mL Not Found Not Found
solids solids
Coliform
Bacteria
3. E. Coli MPN/100 mL Not Found Not Found
4. BOD5 mg/L 18 4
5. Turbidity NTU 16 4

TABLE 4. Grey Water Quality Before and After Treatment of the Sedimentation System.

Before Treatment After Treatment

Test Visual Values of each Visual Values of each
Parameter Unit characteristic parameter characteristic parameter
1. Suspended mg/L White colour 22 Yellow clear 4
Solids water with water with
turbidity and suspended
2. Fecal MPN/100 mL Not Found 6
suspended solids
Coliform
solids
Bacteria
3. E. Coli MPN/100 mL Not Found 6
4. BOD5 mg/L 18 14
5. Turbidity NTU 49.5 17

78 Volume 13, Number 1

01_04_TaemthongResearch_6793.indd 78 2/20/18 8:54 AM

 TABLE 5. Grey Water Quality Before Treatment by Aerated System across Three Tests.

Test results of each parameter

before Treatment in 3 tests
Test
Parameter Unit 1 2 3 Average Median Max
1. Suspended mg/L 20 20 32 24 20.00 32
Solids
2. Fecal MPN/100 Not Not Not Not N/A N/A
Coliform mL Found Found Found Found
Bacteria
3. E. Coli MPN/100 Not Not Not Not N/A N/A

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/1/73/1770247/1943-4618_13_1_73.pdf by Indonesia user on 25 May 2023

mL Found Found Found Found
4. BOD5 mg/L 18 3 19 13.33 18.00 19
5. Turbidity NTU 16 37 57 36.67 37.00 57

TABLE 6. Grey Water Quality After Treatment by Aerated System across Three Tests.

Test results of each parameter

after Treatment in 3 tests
Test
Parameter Unit 1 2 3 Average Median Max
1. Suspended mg/L 2 2 1 1.67 2.00 2
Solids
2. Fecal MPN/100 Not Not Not N/A N/A N/A
Coliform mL Found Found Found
Bacteria
3. E. Coli MPN/100 Not Not Not N/A N/A N/A
mL Found Found Found
4. BOD5 mg/L 4 4 2 3.33 4.00 4
5. Turbidity NTU 4 5 1 3.33 4.00 5

toilet flushing. It would fail in terms of the turbidity aspect in Brittish Columbia of Canada,
Washington of USA, California of USA, and Victoria, of Australia. Coliform bacteria and E.
Coli are not found in the three samples of the aerated system. SS and BOD5 values are less
than the limits specified in all of the countries shown. However, this research did not consider
the effects of certain water parameters such as pH and chlorine residuals, which are required in
certain countries, such as Canada, Japan, and Korea. Different countries have different guide-
lines. Economic and weather could be factors behind this.

Economic aspect
The aerated system has initial and yearly operating costs of $1,193 and $80, respectively, as
shown in Table 8. They are less than the initial and yearly operating costs of the full system
by 16% and 3% per year, respectively. Meanwhile, the aerated system is more expensive than

Journal of Green Building 79

01_04_TaemthongResearch_6793.indd 79 2/20/18 8:54 AM

 TABLE 7. Grey Water Quality Standards for Different Regions for Reusing Water in Toilet
Flushing. (CMHC 2005)

Coliform bacteria E. coli Turbidity

Countries SS (mg/L) (CFU/100ml) (CFU/100 ml) BOD5 (mg/L) (NTU)
British ≤5 ≤ 2.2 < 10 ≤2
Columbia,
Canada
California, median < 2.2 and ≤2
USA max ≤ 23
Germany ≤ 10 ≤1 ≤5

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/1/73/1770247/1943-4618_13_1_73.pdf by Indonesia user on 25 May 2023

New South ≤ 30 median ≤ 10 ≤ 20
Wales, AUS
Victoria, AUS ≤5 median ≤ 10 ≤ 10 ≤2
Washington, ≤ 30 median ≤ 20 ≤ 30 median ≤ 2 and
USA max ≤ 5
This research Max = 2 Not found Not found Max = 4 Max = 5
Median = 4

TABLE 8. Initial Investment, Yearly Costs and Benefits of the Three systems

Cash Flow Description Cost of System

Full Aerated Sedimentation
Initial investment, $ 1,414 1,193 908
Operating costs from electricity and sand and 82 80 52
carbon filter, $ per year
Benefit from water saving, $ per year 69 69 69

the sedimentation system by 31% and 53% in terms of the initial and yearly operating costs,
respectively.
The water saving is based on two major factors, volume of the grey water used each day
and tank capacity. If the tank is too small, the grey water cannot be saved for later use and
overflows through the drainage system of the building. Benefits from water saving is calculated
using an average discharge at 641 litres per day for all systems. Thus, water could be saved at a
rate of 176.3 m3 per year, based on 275 working days per year in such a university building case.
In this research, the benefit accrued from water saving is estimated at $69 per year, as shown
in the last row of Table 8. This is calculated using the tap water unit cost in Bangkok being at
$0.4 per m3. These savings represent approximately 6.2% of average water usage, at 10.33 m3
per day, based on the building from which our data was collected. The operating costs of the
aerated system are higher than the benefits accrued from water saving, resulting in a negative
cash flow. The rate of return cannot be determined in such a case. As a result, installing a water
recycling system is not attractive in terms of an economic aspect. It is attractive for installing in
a green building promoting environmentally-friendly practices in Bangkok. However, if a unit

80 Volume 13, Number 1

01_04_TaemthongResearch_6793.indd 80 2/20/18 8:54 AM

 TABLE 9. International Water Cost

Country City $/m3 References

UK 2.00 (Anglian Water 2017)
USA Boston 1.82 (Boston Water 2017)
Germany 1.78 (Daily Scandinavian 2016)
Denmark 1.72 (Daily Scandinavian 2016)
Thailand Phuket 0.99 (PWA 2017)
Singapore 0.83 (Singapore 2017)
Thailand Bangkok 0.41 (MWA 2017)

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/1/73/1770247/1943-4618_13_1_73.pdf by Indonesia user on 25 May 2023

cost of tap water in Bangkok increases to $1.15 per m3, the breakeven would be reached by a
non-discounted method. Certain countries would find the recommended system attractive to
install, including the UK, USA, Germany, and Denmark as shown in Table 9.

User opinion sample

Fifty-five toilet users were interviewed during the experiments. 83% of such users reported that
the flushing water derived from the recommended recycling system did have some discoloration,
but at an acceptable level. 67% percent of users reported that the recycled water was comparable
to tap water. However, some factors were not included in this study such as odor or pathogens
since most standards for reuse in flushing system do not require these measurements.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The system recommended in this research is not economically viable enough on its own to
attract users to install the system in their buildings in Thailand. However, it is suitable to be
installed as the recommended system in green buildings seeking to reflect their corporate social
responsibility and environmentally-friendly credentials. Since developers may well be interested
in either earning green building credits or concerned about their environmental footprint, the
water saving from using recycled water can be combined with using water saving faucets and
valves and channelling rain water to landscaped areas in order to earn green building credits. The
cost of implementing such credits as these is less expensive than that of some other credits. Fidar
et al. (2010) confirmed that water as related to energy usage and toilet flushing systems play
a significant role in reducing water consumption. Thus, water usage savings in toilet flushing
systems could potentially help contribute towards both conserving our environment and earning
credits according to LEED standards. In conclusion, the aerated system is effective for treating
grey water derived from washbasins and reusing it in flushing systems. The recommended system
represents a sufficiently efficient water treatment system which is adequate for recycling grey
water from washbasin surplus especially. Water samplings were collected in Thailand. Therefore,
the recommended system might be appropriate for a hot and humid climate area. The system
could be implemented in schools, universities, or office building areas that emit approximately
600–1,000 litres volume of grey water on a daily basis. The area required for such an installation
is approximately twelve square metres. In some buildings, fecal bacteria could be found, and for
these instances adding chlorine to treat the grey water is recommended before use.

Journal of Green Building 81

01_04_TaemthongResearch_6793.indd 81 2/20/18 8:54 AM

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank the Science and Technology Research Institute at the King Mongkut’s
University of Technology, North Bangkok, for funding this research under the grant number
KMUTNB-GEN-56-04.

REFERENCES
1. Anglian Water. (2017). “Anglian Water Services Ltd Homepage.” <http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/house-
hold/your-account/bills-and-payments/tariffs/standard-rates/> (May 16, 2017).
2. Boston Water. (2017). “Boston Water and Sewer Commission Homepage.” <http://www.bwsc.org/services/
rates/rates.asp> (May 16, 2017).
3. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). (2005). “Water reuse standards and verification
protocol.” Canada Healthy housing and communities series.

Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jgb/article-pdf/13/1/73/1770247/1943-4618_13_1_73.pdf by Indonesia user on 25 May 2023

4. Chaillou, K., Gerente, C., Andres, Y., and Wolbert, D. (2011) “Bathroom greywater characterization and
potential treatments for reuse.” Water air and soil pollution, 215, 31–42.
5. Daily Scandinavian. (2016). “The Daily Scandinavian Homepage.” Highest Water Prices in the World, April
20, 2016. <https://dailyscandinavian.com/highest-water-prices-in-the-world/> (May 16, 2017).
6. Fidar, A., Memon, F.A., and Butler, D. (2010). “Environmental implications of water efficient microcom-
ponents in residential buildings.” Science of the Total environment, 408, 5828–5835.
7. Fountoulakis, M.S., Markakis, N., Petousi, I., and Manios, T. (2016). “Single house on-site grey water treat-
ment using submerged membrane bioreactor for toilet flushing.” Science of the Total Environment, 551–552,
706–711.
8. Friedler, E. (2004). “Quality of individual domestic greywater streams and its implication for on-site treat-
ment and reuse possibilities.” Environmental Technology, 25, 997–1008.
9. Ghisi, E., and Ferreira, D. F. (2007). “Potential for potable water savings by using rainwater and greywater
in a multi-storey residential building in southern Brazil.” Building and Environment, 42, 2512–2522.
10. Jefferson, B., Laine, A., Parsons, S., Stephenson, T., and Judd, S. (1999). “Technologies for domestic waste-
water recycling.” Urban Water, 1, 285–292.
11. Li, F., Wichmann, K., and Otterpohl, R. (2009). “Review of the technological approaches for grey water
treatment and reuses.” Science of the Total Environment, 407, 3439–3449.
12. Liu, S., Butler, D., Memon, F.A., Makropoulos C., Avery, L., and Jefferson, B., (2010). “Impacts of resi-
dence time during storage on potential of water saving for grey water recycling system.” Water Research, 44,
267–277.
13. MWA. (2017). “Metropolitan Waterworks Authority Homepage.” Water Tariffs Effective December 1999.
<https://www.mwa.co.th/ewt_news.php?nid=303.> (May 16, 2017).
14. PWA. (2017). “Provincial Waterworks Authority.” PWA Water Tariff Rate. <http://en.pwa.co.th/contents/
service/table-price.> (May 16, 2017).
15. Shamabadi, N., Bakhtiari, H., Kochakian, N., and Farahani M. (2015). “The investigation and designing of
an onsite grey water treatment systems at Hazrat-e-Masoumeh University, Qom, Iran.” Energy Procedia, 74,
1337–1346.
16. Singapore. (2017). “Singapore’s National Water Agency.” Water Price. <https://www.pub.gov.sg/watersupply/
waterprice.> (May 16, 2017).
17. Stec, A., and Kordana, S. (2015). “Analysis of profitability of rainwater harvesting, gray water recycling and
drain water heat recovery systems.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 105, 84–94.
18. Sutherland, K. (2008). “Wastewater filtration: A future for grey water recycling.” Filtration and Separation,
April, 18–21.
19. U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). (2009). “LEED for new construction and major renovations rating
system.” Washington DC, USGBC.
20. Zipf, M. S., Pinheiro, I. G., and Conegero, M. C. (2016). “Simplified greywater treatment systems: Slow
filters of sand and slate waste followed by granular activated carbon.” Journal of Environmental Management,
176, 119–127.

82 Volume 13, Number 1

01_04_TaemthongResearch_6793.indd 82 2/20/18 8:54 AM