Article

Treatment and Effective Utilization of Greywater:

A Preliminary Case Study
Sneha Gautam *, Lakshmi M. Makhitha, Anirudh Gupta, J. Brema, E. J. James and Gajendran Chellaiah

Department of Civil Engineering, Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore 641114, India;
makitha@karunya.edu.in (L.M.M.); anirudhgupta@karunya.edu (A.G.); brema@karunya.edu (J.B.);
ejjames@karunya.edu (E.J.J.); gajendran@karunya.edu (G.C.)
* Correspondence: snehagautam@karunya.edu or gautamsneha@gmail.com

Abstract: Greywater has been identified as a valuable alternative water source over recent years.
Few practices (i.e., recycling and reuse) of greywater have attracted global attention in meeting
the future water demand. However, essential parameters should be analyzed for reliable reuse
and treatment. The present study addresses the possibilities of the alternative source with the
treated greywater. Gravity—governed flow methods through a column containing gravel, sand,
and activated carbon was applied. The quality of treated greywater from the university campus,
which included physical, chemical, and biological parameters, was assessed to check non-potable
reuse suitability. The reduction percentage of organics in biological oxygen demand and chemical
oxygen demand was 64% and 42%, respectively. Similarly, the reduction percentage was obtained at
74% and 66% for turbidity and electrical conductivity. The removal efficiency was 57%, 77%, 48%,
and 44% for total dissolved solids, alkalinity, chlorides, and total hardness. The pH of treated water
samples was found in the neutral range suggesting its suitability for reuse. Hence, the proposed
greywater treatment method is a cost-effective and straightforward approach to reuse greywater



for irrigation, watering the lawns, and car washing. The greywater collected can be disinfected


immediately and reused with minimal possibility of regrowth of microorganisms.
Citation: Gautam, S.; Makhitha,
L.M.; Gupta, A.; Brema, J.; James, E.J.; Keywords: biological parameters; greywater; filtration; physical and chemical parameters; wastewa-
Chellaiah, G. Treatment and Effective ter reuse
Utilization of Greywater: A
Preliminary Case Study. Appl. Syst.
Innov. 2021, 4, 16. https://doi.org/
10.3390/asi4010016 1. Introduction
The United Nations highlighted the SDGs (sustainable development goals) for 2030,
Received: 29 January 2021
Accepted: 18 February 2021
where the sixth objective is to represent clean water and wastewater treatment [1]. In devel-
Published: 25 February 2021
oping countries, thousands of deaths were reported due to waterborne diseases, and these
results indicate the massive failure to reach the sixth objective of SDGs. With various types
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
of technologies, several decentralized wastewater treatment plants have been installed in
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
developing countries [2].
published maps and institutional affil- Few researchers [3,4] have referred to developing nations’ current opinions about
iations. decentralized wastewater treatment systems for big/megacities’ sanitation systems as
effective and robust. On the other hand, Roefs et al. [5] conducted a comparison study of
three different wastewater treatment plants (i.e., hybrid, centralized, and decentralized)
to understand the issues with the economic perspectives of urban growth. The outcome of
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
the mentioned research is the possible advantages in terms of total discounted lifetime costs.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
In the second opinion, a decentralized treatment will be more advantageous for lower
This article is an open access article
population growth than expected and lower idleness of the treatment plant. Moreover,
distributed under the terms and centralized treatment plants need a more complicated treatment system to achieve the
conditions of the Creative Commons same quality of treated wastewater with a significant amount of carbon dioxide and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// energy consumption [6].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ The decentralized solution is now highly adopted because of low environmental
4.0/). impact association rather than the construction of sewer networks to connect the users

Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi4010016 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/asi

Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, 16 2 of 10

to centralized plants [7]. Nowadays, decentralized wastewater management is prevalent

and demanding due to economic, social, and environmental advantages [7]. According
to WWAP [8], decentralized treatment systems could be another suitable way to the aca-
demic/university campus, rural area, or even in some peri-urban regions, where it’s chal-
lenging to install traditional treatment plants. Simultaneously, greywater could be treated
near the sources where it is coming from, and the treated water could be reused/distributed
close to or at the same site of the treating unit.
The small household technique to treat wastewater can be used as decentralized treat-
ment systems. The treatment unit’s important highlight is low capital and less operational
expenditure occupying small areas other than traditional wastewater treatment unit/plants.
The present form of treatment plant has few qualities (i.e., simple operations and annex-
ation of natural gravity-based technologies to reuse the wastewater in situ) to show the
low-cost method’s main advantages with unique household techniques over traditional
plants [9]. In higher pollution, water scarcity, and unsustainable development practices,
the demand for treated water will increase in cities/society and academic campuses [1].
Many water demands (i.e., gardening, car washing, floor cleaning, etc.) by institutions and
university campuses can be achieved by low-cost treatment units [10–12].
Therefore, to reduce the water demand for future sustainability, a simple operation and
low-cost method with a unique household technique was introduced to reuse the greywater
from the university campus’s administrative block. The present work aims to reduce the
demand for water or groundwater extraction subsequently. A small unit for greywater
treatment is installed in Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, an academic campus
to manage the administrative block’s greywater. The main objective is to develop a low-cost
and effective method to treat greywater using gravity-governed filtration techniques.

2. Materials and Methodology

A gravity-governed method has been applied, where natural strata were used to treat
the greywater. Also, applied bleaching powder to the disinfection process. Filtration media
was prepared by using a column packed with filtration media (i.e., cotton, activated carbon,
sand (fine (<0.5 mm) and coarse (1.0 mm/0.5 mm)), and gravel (small—(4.0 mm/2.0 mm)
and big (4.0 mm/12.0 mm)). Where activated carbon (<1.0 mm) captures color, odor,
and organic pollutants, sand, and gravel capture suspended solids and microorganisms.
The volume of the material used in cubic cm (i.e., activated carbon—82, fine sand—191,
coarse sand—191, small gravel—318, big gravel—382). The selection of filtration media
was based on previously published articles [13–15].
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12
A schematic diagram of the proposed greywater treatment is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. A schematic diagram of the proposed greywater treatment procedure.

Figure 1. A schematic diagram of the proposed greywater treatment procedure.
A total of 30 samples were collected from the five outlets of the administrative block
of Karunya institute of technology and sciences; the three liters of greywater collected
from different outlets was passed through the compact column (height = 25 cm; radius =
4.5 cm) containing the other layers (i.e., gravel (big and small), sand (coarse and fine),
activated carbon, and cotton). The flow was 6.5–7.5 mL/min, where a total of 5–6 L of
greywater were allowed to pass through the proposed packed column was collected as
treated water. In changing the filtration media, fresh materials have been used again when
it was completely clogged. Bleaching powder (CaOCl2—0.05 g/L) was applied to the dis-
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, 16 3 of 10

A total of 30 samples were collected from the five outlets of the administrative block
of Karunya institute of technology and sciences; the three liters of greywater collected
from different outlets was passed through the compact column (height = 25 cm; radius
= 4.5 cm) containing the other layers (i.e., gravel (big and small), sand (coarse and fine),
activated carbon, and cotton). The flow was 6.5–7.5 mL/min, where a total of 5–6 L of
greywater were allowed to pass through the proposed packed column was collected as
treated water. In changing the filtration media, fresh materials have been used again when
it was completely clogged. Bleaching powder (CaOCl2 —0.05 g/L) was applied to the
disinfection process. The physio-chemical and microbiological analyses were carried out
in Pure and Pure Aqua Laboratory, Trichy, Tamilnadu, India to examine greywater and
treated water. We analyzed according to standard pH, electrical conductivity, Biological
Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), turbidity, alkalinity, chlorides,
total dissolved solids (TDS), Escherichia coli, and residual chlorine, biofilm formation).

3. Results and Discussion

The various parameters of physical, chemical, and biological (i.e., pH, electrical con-
ductivity, TDS, alkalinity, chlorides, total hardness, turbidity, BOD, COD, HLR, OLR,
residual chlorine, E. coli, and biofilm formation) of the untreated and treated wastewaters
were estimated.

3.1. Physical Parameters

3.1.1. Turbidity
The percentage reduction in turbidity of various water samples (Figure 2) was found to
be in the range of 50–74%. The maximum and minimum percentage reduction in turbidity
was found in the cases of sample No. 24 and No. 21, respectively. The mean reduction
in turbidity of the various water samples was found to be 58%. Turbidity is an indirect
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12
measure of suspended solids, and it is vital for maintaining the effectiveness of disinfection
technology [16]. Monitoring turbidity is crucial in controlling the aesthetic condition of the
treated greywater [17]. The high percentage reduction in the turbidity and the presence of
of the treated
turbidity of the greywater [17]. Thewithin
treated samples high percentage reduction
the permissible in the
limits turbiditythat
indicated and the
the pres-
greywater
ence of turbidity of the treated samples within the permissible limits indicated that the
might be suitable for reuse after treatment.
greywater might be suitable for reuse after treatment.

Turbidity_UT Turbidity_T Permissible

400
350
300
Turbidity (NTU)

250
200
150
100
50
0
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9

Samples

Figure 2. Turbidity of untreated (UT) and treated (T) samples and permissible limits.
Figure 2. Turbidity of untreated (UT) and treated (T) samples and permissible limits.
3.1.2. Electrical Conductivity
There was a 44%–66% reduction in the various water samples (Figure 3). Sample No.
23 showed the minimum decrease in electrical conductivity, whereas sample No. 28 de-
livered the same maximum reduction parameter. The average reduction in electrical con-
ductivity of the various water samples was observed as 53%.
 150

Tu
100
50
0

S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, 16 4 of 10

Samples

FigureConductivity
3.1.2. Electrical 2. Turbidity of untreated (UT) and treated (T) samples and permissible limits.

There was a 44–66% reduction

3.1.2. Electrical in the various water samples (Figure 3). Sample No. 23
Conductivity
showed the minimumThere decrease
was a in electrical
44%–66% conductivity,
reduction whereas
in the various sample(Figure
water samples No. 283). delivered
Sample No.
the same maximum 23 showed
reduction the minimum decrease
parameter. in electrical
The average conductivity,
reduction in whereas sample
electrical No. 28 de-
conductivity
livered
of the various water the same
samples wasmaximum
observedreduction parameter. The average reduction in electrical con-
as 53%.
ductivity of the various water samples was observed as 53%.

EC_UT EC_T
1000
900
800
700
600
EC (S/m)

500
400
300
200
100
0
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9

Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12

Samples

Figure
Figure 3. Electrical
3. Electrical conductivity
conductivity of untreated
of untreated (UT) (UT) and treated
and treated (T) samples.
(T) samples.

3.2.
3.2.Chemical
ChemicalParameters
Parameters
3.2.1. PH
3.2.1. PH
By USEPA guidelines, the treated water samples’ pH must be in the range of ~6–9 for
By USEPA guidelines, the treated water samples’ pH must be in the range of ~6–9 for
suitable reuse [16,17]. Figure 4 shows that the pH of the treated water samples was around
suitable reuse [16,17]. Figure 4 shows that the pH of the treated water samples was around
the
theneutral
neutralrange
range(i.e.,
(i.e., ~6–7), suggestingthat
~6–7), suggesting thatititcan
canbebeused
usedforfor reuse
reuse after
after treatment.
treatment.

pH_UT pH_T Permissible

9
8
7
6
5
pH

4
3
2
1
0
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9

Samples

Figure
Figure 4.4.pH
pHofofuntreated
untreated(UT)
(UT)and
and treated
treated (T)
(T) water
water samples
samplesand
andpermissible
permissiblelimits.
limits.

3.2.2. TDS
We found the percentage of reduction in TDS of the various water samples (Figure 5) to
be in the range of 48%–57%. In sample No. 2, the maximum percentage of TDS reduction
was obtained, whereas the minimum percentage of decrease in TDS was obtained in the
case of sample No. 25. The mean percentage of reduction in TDS was obtained as 54%.
The high percentage of reduction in TDS and its presence within the permissible limits
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, 16 5 of 10

3.2.2. TDS
We found the percentage of reduction in TDS of the various water samples (Figure 5)
to be in the range of 48–57%. In sample No. 2, the maximum percentage of TDS reduction
was obtained, whereas the minimum percentage of decrease in TDS was obtained in the
case of sample No. 25. The mean percentage of reduction in TDS was obtained as 54%.
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, x FOR PEERThe
REVIEW
high percentage of reduction in TDS and its presence within the permissible 6limits
of 12
suggests that the greywater is suitable for reuse after treatment.

TDS_UT TDS_T Permissible

1000
900
800
700
TDS (mg/L)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
Samples

Figure
Figure 5.
5. TDS
TDS of
of untreated
untreated (UT)
(UT) and
and treated
treated (T)
(T) water
water samples and permissible
samples and permissible limits.
limits.

3.2.3. Alkalinity
3.2.3. Alkalinity
The percentage
The percentage of ofreduction
reductionininalkalinity of of
alkalinity thethe
various water
various samples
water (Figure
samples 6a) was
(Figure 6a)
found
was to beto
found in be
theinrange of 29–77%.
the range The maximum
of 29%–77%. and minimum
The maximum percentage
and minimum of alkalinity
percentage of
reduction reduction
alkalinity was obtainedwas in samplein
obtained No. 10 and
sample No.No.10 12,
andrespectively. The mean
No. 12, respectively. value
The meanof
percentage
value reductionreduction
of percentage in alkalinity of the various
in alkalinity of the water
varioussamples was 46%.was
water samples The treated
46%. The
samples’ alkalinity was within the permissible limits and indicated that they might
treated samples’ alkalinity was within the permissible limits and indicated that they mightsuitably
reuse thereuse
suitably greywater.
the greywater.

3.2.4. Chlorides
(a) Alkalinity_UT Alkalinity_T
There was a 27–48% reduction Permissible
in the various water samples (Figure 6b). The maximum
and minimum reduction in chlorides was found in sample No. 1 and No. 23, respectively.
900
The mean value of percent reduction in chlorides of the various water samples obtained
800
Alkalinity (mg/L)

was 35%. The reuse of greywater is indicated by the fact that the treated samples’ chloride
700
content was within the permissible limits.
600
500 3.2.5. Total Hardness
400
The percentage of reduction in total hardness of the various water samples (Figure 7)
300
was observed in the range of 8–44%. Sample No. 1 and No. 22 showed the maximum
200
reduction in total hardness, whereas sample No. 4 showed the minimum decrease in total
100
hardness. The mean value of percentage reduction in the various water samples’ total
0
hardness was observed as 23%.
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30

3.2.6. BOD
Samples
The percentage of BOD reduction of various water samples (Figure 8a) was observed
in the range of 28–64%. In samples No. 4 and No. 9, the maximum percentage of BOD
 500

TDS (
400
300
200
100
0
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, 16 6 of 10

S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
Samples

Figure 5. TDS of untreated (UT) and treated (T) water samples and permissible limits.
reduction was obtained, whereas the minimum percentage of BOD reduction was obtained
in the case of sample No. 20. The mean value of the percentage of decrease in BOD of the
3.2.3. Alkalinity
various water samples The percentage
was 51%. of reduction in alkalinity
It suggested thatof the
the various water samplesorganic
biodegradable (Figure 6a)compounds
was found to be in the range of 29%–77%. The maximum and minimum percentage of
may be suitablyalkalinity
removed reduction was obtained in sample No. 10 and No. 12, respectively.BOD
through this treatment process [16]. Since the of most of the
The mean
treated samplesvalue
wasofwithin thereduction
percentage permissible limits,
in alkalinity of thethe greywater
various waswas
water samples found to be suitable
46%. The
treated samples’ alkalinity was within the permissible limits and indicated that they might
for reuse. suitably reuse the greywater.

(a) Alkalinity_UT Alkalinity_T Permissible

900
800
Alkalinity (mg/L)

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 12
Samples

(b) Chlorides_UT Chlorides_T Permissible

300

250
Chloride (mg/L)

200

150

100

50

0
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30

Samples

Figure 6. Alkalinity (a) and chlorides (b) of untreated (UT) and treated (T) samples and permissible limits.
Figure 6. Alkalinity (a) and chlorides (b) of untreated (UT) and treated (T) samples and permissi-
3.2.4. Chlorides
Appl. Syst.ble limits.
Innov. 2021, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 12
There was a 27%–48% reduction in the various water samples (Figure 6b). The max-
imum and minimum reduction in chlorides was found in sample No. 1 and No. 23, re-
spectively. The mean value of percent reduction in chlorides of the various water samples
obtained was 35%. The reuse of greywater
THardness_UT is indicated by the fact that the treated samples’
THardness_T
chloride content was within the permissible limits.
600
3.2.5. Total Hardness
500 The percentage of reduction in total hardness of the various water samples (Figure 7)
Total Hardness (mg/L)

was observed in the range of 8%–44%. Sample No. 1 and No. 22 showed the maximum
400 reduction in total hardness, whereas sample No. 4 showed the minimum decrease in total
hardness. The mean value of percentage reduction in the various water samples’ total
300 hardness was observed as 23%.

200

100

0
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30

Samples

Figure 7. Total hardness in untreated (UT) and treated (T) samples.

Figure 7. Total hardness in untreated (UT) and treated (T) samples.
3.2.6. BOD
The percentage of BOD reduction of various water samples (Figure 8a) was observed
in the range of 28%–64%. In samples No. 4 and No. 9, the maximum percentage of BOD
reduction was obtained, whereas the minimum percentage of BOD reduction was ob-
tained in the case of sample No. 20. The mean value of the percentage of decrease in BOD
of the various water samples was 51%. It suggested that the biodegradable organic com-
pounds may be suitably removed through this treatment process [16]. Since the BOD of
most of the treated samples was within the permissible limits, the greywater was found
to be suitable for reuse.
 in the range of 28%–64%. In samples No. 4 and No. 9, the maximum percentage of BOD
reduction was obtained, whereas the minimum percentage of BOD reduction was ob-
tained in the case of sample No. 20. The mean value of the percentage of decrease in BOD
of the various water samples was 51%. It suggested that the biodegradable organic com-
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, 16 pounds may be suitably removed through this treatment process [16]. Since the BOD 7 of of
10
most of the treated samples was within the permissible limits, the greywater was found
to be suitable for reuse.

(a) BOD_UT BOD_T Permissible

350

300

250
BOD (mg/L)

200

150

100

50

0
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 12
Samples

(b) COD_UT COD_T Permissible

500
450
400
350
COD (mg/L)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30

Samples

Figure
Figure 8.
8. BOD
BOD (a)
(a) and
and COD
COD (b)
(b) of
of untreated
untreated (UT)
(UT) and
and treated
treated (T)
(T) samples
samples and
and permissible limits.
permissible limits.

3.2.7.
3.2.7. COD
COD
There
There was
wasaareduction
reductionofof17%–42%
17–42% in inCOD
COD ofof the
the various
various water
water samples
samples (Figure
(Figure 8b).
8b).
The
The maximum
maximum and and minimum
minimum percentage
percentage of of reduction
reduction in in the
the case
case of sample No.
of sample No. 2626 and
and
No.
No. 1,
1, respectively.
respectively. The
The mean
mean percentage
percentage ofof reduction
reduction in in COD
COD of various water
of various water samples
samples
was
was found to be 25%. The lower COD removal maybe because the recalcitrant organic
found to be 25%. The lower COD removal maybe because the recalcitrant organic
compounds
compoundsmay maybe bepresent
presentinin
higher
higherproportions
proportions in the greywater
in the andand
greywater could not be
could noteffi-
be
ciently removed during the treatment process [16]. However, the suitable
efficiently removed during the treatment process [16]. However, the suitable reuse reuse of grey-
of
water is possible
greywater since
is possible the the
since COD CODof the treated
of the water
treated watersamples
sampleswaswaswithin
withinthe
thepermissible
permissible
limits. The high percent reduction in turbidity and BOD values of the treated water sam-
ples indicate that the greywater is suitable for non-potable reuse after treatment.

3.3. Biological Parameters

3.3.1. E. coli Check and Biofilm Formation
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, 16 8 of 10

limits. The high percent reduction in turbidity and BOD values of the treated water samples
indicate that the greywater is suitable for non-potable reuse after treatment.

3.3. Biological Parameters

3.3.1. E. coli Check and Biofilm Formation
The MPN (most probable number) of E. coli content in treated water was 5.7 per
100 mL. It was within the maximum permissible limit of 23 per 100 mL [16,18]. It indicated
the safety of viral infections. There was no biofilm formation in the media as per the
governance of four months.

3.3.2. Organic Loading Rate (OLR) and Hydraulic Loading Rate (HLR)
OLR expresses the amount of organic matter fed into a system in BOD [19–22].
The OLR ranges from 0.001919 to 0.0027 with a mean and standard deviation of 0.0022
and 0.00023, respectively. The hydraulic loading rate (HLR) of the wastewater treatment
process unit was 0.041 m3 per m2 per day.

3.3.3. Residual Chlorine Check

A residual chlorine check is one of the most effective methods for checking microbial
contaminations in wastewater streams [23–26]. Chlorine is one of the effective chemicals
in destroying a variety of organisms such as bacteria, viruses, and protozoa, including
Salmonella, Shigella, and Vibrio cholerae. This method of chlorination is widely practiced
in wastewater treatment methods in order to reduce microbial contamination. This also
decreases the risk of exposure to diseases due to microbial populations. By-products
are formed due to the addition of chlorine or any chemical disinfectant to wastewater.
The presence of ammonia and the prior condition of the sewage have a considerable
impact on the by-product formation. Dechlorination of excess chlorine is highly essential
prior to utilization in order to conserve aquatic life and also to reduce the impact of the
intensity of disinfection by-products. The residual chlorine content in treated water after
chlorination was 0.1–0.2 mg/L. It was within the permissible limit of 1 mg/L [16,17]
(Arden and Ma., 2018; Oh et al. 2017). It indicated that the water was free from excess
residual chlorine content.
The E. coli check and residual chlorine check suggested that the greywater is suitable
for non-potable reuse after treatment. However, quantitative microbial risk assessment can
be included to check the microbial risk involved in the non-potable reuse of greywater [27].
Furthermore, economic analysis can be planned in the future [28]. For possible water reuse
in the agricultural sector, the retention of nutrients (i.e., total nitrogen and orthophosphate)
must also be investigated [29]. In addition, the overall treatment of greywater can also be
improved suitably by using a combination of treatment processes (such as membranes and
coagulation) to obtain high-quality treated water for irrigation purposes [30].

4. Conclusions
A comprehensive characterization of greywater is essential to the design of a zero
liquid discharge treatment system. In this regard, greywater samples were collected from
the university campus to assess the characterization of physical, chemical, and biological
parameters and their removal efficiency after passing through the column containing
gravel, sand, and activated carbon. The percentage of BOD reduction was as high as 64%,
showing suitable removal of the biodegradable organic compounds through this treatment
process. Convenient reuse of greywater can be planned since the COD of the treated water
samples was within the permissible limits, and pH was also in the neutral range. E. coli
and residual chlorine checks also indicated the non-potable reuse of the treated greywater
after treatment. The proposed methods’ output motivates a different outlook towards the
considerable scale benefits in reducing water scarcity and sustaining the water for future
use. The developed design is simple, eco-friendly, economically viable, and installed in
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, 16 9 of 10

every academic campus. Similarly, treated greywater can be used for car washing, watering
the lawns, and irrigation purposes on the campus.
With an increased shortage of water, where one-third of the world’s population have
no access to clean water, greywater reuse plays a vital role. Conversion of significant
wastewater to reusable water using nature-based solutions (NBS) is quite challenging.
Though greywater reuse has positive impacts such as facing a shortage of water resources,
reducing sewage quantity, minimizing the water supply costs, and enhancing the availabil-
ity of organic matter and nutrients, it also has negative impacts such as microbial risks and
metals micro pollutants. Future research needs to be done to study the pros and cons of
greywater treatment procedures.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.G.; data curation, S.G. and L.M.M.; formal analysis, S.G.
and A.G.; methodology, A.G.; resources, J.B.; software, J.B.; supervision, E.J.J.; visualization, G.C.;
writing—original draft, S.G. and A.G.; writing—review & editing, S.G. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences Coimbatore
under the Karunya Short Term Grant (Seed Money for Research).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable.
Acknowledgments: S.G. is thankful to the Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore,
Tamil Nadu, India, to provide us the required data sets and support during analysis.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. UNDP. Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation. Available online: https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-
development-goals/goal-6-clean-water-and-sanitation.html (accessed on 6 June 2020).
2. Singh, N.K.; Kazmi, A.A.; Starkl, M. A review on full-scale decentralized wastewater treatment systems: Techno-economical
ap-proach. Water Sci. Technol. 2015, 71, 468–478. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Abou-Elela, S.I.; Hellal, M.S.; Aly, O.H.; Abo-Elenin, S.A. Decentralized wastewater treatment using passively aerated biological
filter. Environ. Technol. 2017, 40, 250–260. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. International Water Association—IWA. Wastewater Report 2018. The Reuse Opportunity. Cities Seizing the Reuse Opportunity in a
Circular Economy; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2018.
5. Roefs, I.; Meulman, B.; Vreeburg, J.H.; Spiller, M. Centralised, decentralised or hybrid sanitation systems? Economic evaluation
under urban development uncertainty and phased expansion. Water Res. 2017, 109, 274–286. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Matos, C.; Pereira, S.; Amorim, E.V.; Bentes, I.; Briga-Sá, A. Wastewater and greywater reuse on irrigation in centralized and
de-centralized systems-an integrated approach on water quality, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Sci. Total Environ. 2014,
493, 463–471. [CrossRef]
7. Fane, A.; Fane, S. The role of membrane technology in sustainable decentralized wastewater systems. Water Sci. Technol. 2005, 51,
317–325. [CrossRef]
8. WWAP (UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2019: Leaving No
One Behind; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2019.
9. Chernicharo, C.A.L. Princípios do Tratamentobiológico de Aguasresiduárias: Reatoresanaeróbios, 2nd ed.; UFMG: Belo Horizonte,
Brasil, 2016.
10. Petousi, I.; Daskalakis, G.; Fountoulakis, M.; Lydakis, D.; Fletcher, L.; Stentiford, E.; Manios, T. Effects of treated wastewater
irrigation on the establishment of young grapevines. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 658, 485–492. [CrossRef]
11. Jabri, K.M.; Nolde, E.; Ciroth, A.; Bousselmi, L.; Jabri, K.M.; Nolde, E.; Ciroth, A.; Bousselmi, L. Life cycle assessment of
a decentralized greywater treatment alternative for non-potable reuse application. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 17,
433–444. [CrossRef]
12. Magwaza, S.T.; Magwaza, L.S.; Odindo, A.O.; Mditshwa, A. Hydroponic technology as decentralised system for domestic
wastewater treatment and vegetable production in urban agriculture: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 698, 134154. [CrossRef]
13. Bagundol, T.B.; Awa, A.L.; Enguito, M.R.C. Efciency of slow sand filter in purifying well water. J. Multidiscip. Stud. 2013, 2, 86–102.
14. MWRI–GOSS. Technical Guidelines for the Construction and Management of Slow Sand Filters. A Manual for Field Staff and Practitioners;
MWRI-GOSS: Khartoum, Sudan, 2009.
Appl. Syst. Innov. 2021, 4, 16 10 of 10

15. Huisman, L.; Wood, W.E. An Introduction to Slow Sand Filtration. Available online: www.itacanet.org (accessed on 10
October 2018).
16. Arden, S.; Ma, X. Constructed wetlands for greywater recycle and reuse: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 630,
587–599. [CrossRef]
17. Oh, K.S.; Leong, J.Y.C.; Poh, P.E.; Chong, M.N.; Lau, E.V. A review of greywater recycling related issues: Challenges and future
prospects in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 171, 17–29. [CrossRef]
18. Oron, G.; Adel, M.; Agmon, V.; Friedler, E.; Halperin, R.; Leshem, E.; Weinberg, D. Greywater use in Israel and worldwide:
Standards and prospects. Water Res. 2014, 58, 92–101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Selimoğlu, F.; Öbek, E.; Karataş, F.; Arslan, E.I.; Tatar, S.Y. Determination of amounts of some vitamin B groups in domestic
wastewater treatment plants. Turk. J. Sci. Technol. 2015, 10, 1–5.
20. Velho, V.F.; Daudt, G.C.; Martins, C.L.; Belli, F.P.; Costa, R.H.R. Reduction of excess sludge production in an activated sludge sys-
tem based on lysis-cryptic growth, uncoupling metabolism and folic acid addition. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 2016, 33, 47–57. [CrossRef]
21. Abdel-Raouf, N.; Al-Homaidan, A.A.; Ibraheem, I.B.M. Microalgae and wastewater treatment. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2012, 19,
257–275. [CrossRef]
22. Zamalloa, C.; Boon, N.; Verstraete, W. Anaerobic digestibility of Scenedesmus obliquus and Phaeodactylumtricornutum under
mesophilic and thermophilic conditions. Appl. Energy 2012, 92, 733–738. [CrossRef]
23. Stover, E.L.; Haas, C.N.; Rakness, K.L.; Scheible, O.K. Design Manual: Municipal Wastewater Disinfection; Environmental Protection
Agency: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1986.
24. White, G.C. Handbook of Chlorination; Van Nostrand Reinhold Company: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
25. Haas, C.N. Assessing the need for wastewater disinfection. J. Water Pollut. Cont. Fed. 1987, 59, 856–864.
26. Water Pollution Control Federation: Disinfection Committee. Wastewater Disinfection: A State-of the-Art Report; Water Pollution
Conrtol Federation: Alexandria, VA, USA, 1984.
27. Gonçalves, R.F.; Vaz, L.D.O.; Peres, M.; Merlo, S.S. Microbiological risk from non-potable reuse of greywater treated by anaerobic
filters associated to vertical constructed wetlands. J. Water Process. Eng. 2021, 39, 101751. [CrossRef]
28. Rodríguez, C.; Sánchez, R.; Rebolledo, N.; Schneider, N.; Serrano, J.; Leiva, E. Cost–benefit evaluation of decentralized greywater
reuse systems in rural public schools in Chile. Water 2020, 12, 3468. [CrossRef]
29. Rossi, G.; Mainardis, M.; Aneggi, E.; Weavers, L.K.; Goi, D. Combined ultrasound-ozone treatment for reutilization of primary
effluent—A preliminary study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 700–710. [CrossRef]
30. Ucevli, O.; Kaya, Y. A comparative study of membrane filtration, electrocoagulation, chemical coagulation and their hybrid
processes for greywater treatment. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 104946. [CrossRef]