Greywater application

Greywater Technology Testing ProtocolClare Diaper, Melissa Toifl and Michael Storey December 2008 Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Report series ISSN: 1835-095X Australia is founding its future on science and innovation. Its national science agency, CSIRO, is a powerhouse of ideas, technologies and skills. CSIRO initiated the National Research Flagships to address Australia’s major research challenges and opportunities. They apply large scale, long term, multidisciplinary science and aim for widespread adoption of solutions. The Flagship Collaboration Fund supports the best and brightest researchers to address these complex challenges through partnerships between CSIRO, universities, research agencies and industry. The work contained in this report is collaboration between CSIRO Land and Water and the Smart Water Fund. For more information about Water for a Healthy Country Flagship or the National Research Flagship Initiative visit www.csiro.au/org/HealthyCountry.html © Commonwealth of Australia 2008 All rights reserved. This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Citation: Diaper, C. Toifl, M and Storey, M (2008) Greywater Technology Testing Protocol. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship Copyright and Disclaimer © 2008 CSIRO To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO. Important Disclaimer: CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it. Cover Photograph: From: iStockphoto.com Description: A clothes washing machine with liquid detergent being added. Copyright: Jennifer Morgan Acknowledgements The authors of this report would like to thank all other CSIRO team members who have provided input into this project: Roger O’Halloran, Grace Tjandraatmadja, Michelle Critchley and Yesim Gozukara. The project team would like to thank Smart Water Fund and the water companies represented by this body: City West Water, South East Water, Yarra Valley Water and Melbourne Water Corporation, for their financial support in this project. Everwater, Sampford and Sons, and New Water are gratefully acknowledged for providing technologies to test and the resources to commission them. CSIRO would also like to thank the EPA (Environment Protection Authority Victoria) and DHS (Department of Human Services) for their contributions to the development of this protocol, Ecowise for information on field testing of greywater technologies and other manufacturers who provided greywater quality data. Greywater technology testing protocol Page iii Executive Summary This report provides details of a proposed laboratory based greywater technology testing protocol and details the recommended procedures, methods and analysis techniques for this process. This is a draft methodology and should be viewed as such, its purpose being a discussion document to be circulated to regulatory bodies, councils, system manufacturers and other stakeholders for comment and discussion. The report includes a description of the protocol as well as details of the processes that were followed during protocol development and the rationale of decisions and recommendations. The protocol was developed by testing three small scale greywater treatment systems (Table A and (Diaper C. and Toifl M. 2006; Diaper C. et al. 2006; Diaper C. and Toifl M. 2007)) which combined different chemical, physical and biological processes to achieve performance requirements. The technologies were selected on the basis of these unit processes in order to ensure the protocol was appropriate for the different process types. Table A: Technologies tested during protocol development Technology Process type Treatment process Disinfection process A Semi batch Biological with suspended media UV B Batch Chemical flocculant dosing, UV and four stage filtration UV C Semi batch Settling, biological with fixed media Chemical (Cl/Br) The testing was undertaken in a PC2 (Physical Containment Level 2) laboratory under controlled conditions. The following basic equipment was required for testing: • Feed tank (1000 L capacity recommended) • Submersible pump for mixing greywater • Greywater feed pump (specifications dependent on technologies tested and laboratory setup) • Pressure rated dosing pump for inoculum dosing • Online flow meter or rotameter (flow range dependent on technologies tested) • Effluent storage tanks to allow disinfection of treated greywater. The technologies were fed with a synthetic greywater which mimicked an average combined laundry and bathroom greywater from an Australian residential dwelling. The components of the greywater included a range of market share household products, some laboratory grade chemicals and secondary sewage effluent sourced from a local wastewater treatment plant (Eastern Treatment Plant, Melbourne). The quality parameter ranges for suspended solids, biological oxygen demand (BOD), temperature, pH, turbidity, sodium, zinc, total phosphorous total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), conductivity, chemical oxygen demand (COD), total organic carbon (TOC), total coliforms and E.coli were selected following review of Australian and international literature and analysis of data collected from Australian case studies. Whilst calcium and magnesium were analysed in the synthetic greywater, parameter ranges were not specified as these will vary and is dependent on mains water quality. Aluminium was also measured but has no specific parameter range as this will be highly dependent on the household products used. Greywater technology testing protocol Page iv Although the phages are similar in size (24 and 27 nm respectively). removal at the molecular level will be predominantly influenced by charge rather than size. was trialled but analysis techniques were time consuming and of limited accuracy. The reason for basing selection on charge rather than size was that. One litre sample volumes were used. The micro-organisms selected were in accordance with those suggested in national water recycling guidelines (Environment Protection and Heritage Council et al. Technologies are challenged with repeated high feed concentrations of the different microorganism surrogates. Collection of proportional volume feed and product samples. latex fluorospheres. The purpose of the microbiological testing was to prove a log removal of bacterial. 2006). The water quality parameters analysed in the feed and product streams during chemical testing were the same as those for the synthetic greywater with the addition of nitrate and F. The bacterial surrogates used were Escherichia coli (ATCC 25772) and Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC 19433) as both are recommended strains for use with Colilert tests kits (IDEXX Laboratories). as previous work had indicated that the product samples collected required concentration.1 (2000) (Australian Standard 2000). During protocol development a helminth surrogate. either in-house or by a NATA accredited laboratory. for the greywater treatment technologies currently on the market in Australia. The viral surrogates selected were the bacteriophages MS-2 and ΦX174.Enterococci.9) (Dowd S.Three stages of testing were proposed as follows: • Tracer study • Chemical testing • Microbiological testing.17. The tracer used in the testing of the three greywater technologies was sodium chloride. 1998). et al. protozoan and viral surrogates. they have different isoelectric points (ΦX174 pI = 6. As helminth ova are unlikely to be prevalent in greywater in Australia it is recommended this surrogate is rejected as a testing requirement. The concentrations of each phage had to be at least 106 so that log 7 removal could be proven by any system tested.E. the selected analysis technique. and the proof of log removal was inconclusive. Inoculum concentrations of > 106 cfu/100mL were required in order to prove a 7 log removal (minimum detection 100 cfu/100mL). is recommended. Clostridium perfringens was selected as the surrogate for Cryptosporidium oocysts. as simple monitoring of outlet concentrations was possible and the concentrations used did not affect biological treatment. and the exception of temperature. The three stages of testing outlined in the protocol provided: • Hydraulic integrity testing of the technology Greywater technology testing protocol Page v . The parameters selected for chemical testing were based on a literature review of components of greywater and investigation of greywater components likely to have detrimental impacts on soils. The spores were prepared from frozen stocks obtained from the culture collection held by the University of NSW and product samples were analysed using the method described in AS/NZS 4276. rather than spot samples. Concentrations of spores in the inoculum were in the range of 105 to 106 spores/100mL so that 7 log removal could be proven. Product water samples were assayed for MS2 and ΦX174 phage. described in the standard method. Dowd et al. using the ISO standard methods for MS-2 (International Standard Organisation 1995) and ΦX174 (International Standard Organisation 2000).6 and MS-2 pI = 3. The tracer study provided a profile of technology flow conditions and was used to develop flow and dosing regimes for chemical and microbiological testing. 1998. rather than the dilution. the number of repetitions and product sample analysis dependent on the technology and the results of the tracer study. a somatic and an fspecific RNA phage respectively. The basic micro-organism analysis was carried out during chemical testing as secondary effluent was added to the synthetic greywater and the performance of the technology could be clarified prior to dosing high micro-organism concentrations. plant life and other water bodies. as outlined in the National Water Recycling Guidelines (Environment Protection and Heritage Council et al. As such. such as residential dual reticulation.• A check of performance in removal of greywater components that are harmful to the environment • Proof of performance of a technology in the removal of a range of surrogate microorganisms • Some assessment of operational issues. 2006) Greywater technology testing protocol Page vi . multi-unit dwellings and unrestricted access urban irrigation. the protocol is appropriate for testing technologies for High Exposure Risk end uses. ............. 7 Procedure ............................................... 23 Appendix 1 – Synthetic greywater components ......................2............................... 5 3...... 6............. 11 Chemical testing ....................................... 3....................... 16 Virus surrogate dosing method................................... 30 Appendix 4 – Real greywater quality ...................................................................................................................3 Table 2: Final synthetic greywater recipe (formulation 4) ................................................ Experimental set up..........................................2.............................4............................................................................ Rationale.............................................. 6................................................ 18 Reporting....... 18 Micro-organism dosing results................................................................19 Table 6: Example of HAZOP assessment method ..................... 7 Quality................... 1 1............................................. Recipe......................................3..........................................................32 Greywater technology testing protocol Page vii ......................................................................................... 4...................................... 9........ 6.......................................................2...................... 21 Future work .............................................................................31 Table 8: Australian greywater quality data.........................................23 Table 7: Synthetic greywater parameter ranges compared to Australian greywater data ............................................. 9 Bacterial dosing method ..................................................... 6............... 25 Appendix 2 – Estimation of amount of products used..........................1............................................................................................................................. 7.....................................14 Table 5: Example results of micro-organism log removal for Technology C....... 18 Helminth surrogate dosing method..........................................3...................................... 16 6........ 17 Protozoa surrogate dosing method ......8 Table 3: Parameter ranges and quality of synthetic greywater ........................................................................................ 31 Appendix 5 – Modifications to synthetic greywater recipe.................................................... 5.......5.... 29 Appendix 3 – Properties of Unimin clay ........................ 6............................................... 5 System requirements.. 14 Microbiological testing................................................................................................................ 34 References........ 13 Results .................10 Table 4: NATA laboratory results of chemical and bacterial testing .........................................................................................................Table of Contents Introduction ................................... Tracer study .............................. Synthetic greywater................................................ Method ..........................................................................................1...................................... 33 Appendix 6 – Changes in parameter ranges for large scale batches using different synthetic greywater formulations ............................................................................................................................................... 8..................................................................................... 2 2... 3............1............. 7 3......... 5.................................................................................................... 35 TABLES Table 1: Summary of technologies tested during protocol development ....................................... 20 Discussion and recommendations .................................................. 13 5................................................................................ .......12 Figure 4: Tracer study outlet Electrical conductivity – Technology C ......12 Greywater technology testing protocol Page viii ...................FIGURES Figure 1: Technologies tested during protocol development (L to R............6 Figure 3: Tracer study outlet Electrical conductivity – Technology A......................................................... Technology A...............6 Figure 2: Schematic of the system layout ........................................ B and C) ................... The testing protocol comprised of three analytic processes: • Tracer study • Chemical testing • Microbiological testing. Section 8 provides recommendations for the future development of the protocol to a national standard. Section 7 outlines possible reporting requirements for the testing of greywater systems. procedures for the generation of synthetic greywater and the results of water quality analysis of large scale batches of greywater (Section 3). The tracer study was required in order to understand the flow profiles of the technology being testing and to develop the subsequent chemical and microbiological testing regimes. followed by experimental details of the microbiological dosing with Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis. The next three sections describe the testing protocol and its components. Section 4 describes the tracer study testing that was required for each technology prior to starting performance testing. with details of component contributions. The chemical testing requirements are then described (Section 5). developed from the summary reports of the three technologies tested during the development of the protocol.Introduction The first section of this report introduces the background to the project and the reasons for and the requirements of the greywater testing protocol development in the Rationale (Section 1). providing details of equipment and facilities used in the testing of three greywater treatment technologies (Section 2). Section 9 describes a proposed desk-based risk assessment to be carried out in conjunction with the laboratory based testing which will provide a more complete assessment of technologies under a range of operating conditions. The synthetic greywater recipe is then described. MS2 and φX174 coliphages and protozoa surrogates (Section 6). Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 1 . The experimental set up is then described. The work was funded by Smart Water Fund and CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship. However. The NSW single household domestic greywater accreditation is based on a 26 week field monitoring period of greywater treatment systems in a household of eight to ten people (or 720 to 900 L/day greywater flow) and includes thermotolerant coliform (TC). free chlorine. it can contain enteric bacteria. pathogens when using greywater for accidental direct contact. This has led to an increased interest in developing new greywater recycling technologies. sportsfield irrigation and groundwater recharge with greywater (Ottoson and Stenstroem 2003). Despite the perceived innocuous nature of greywater. Rationale The aim of this project was to develop a practical. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 2 . 2001. on water saving measures. The processes used are in line with the risk assessment approach of the National Water Recycling Guidelines (Environment Protection and Heritage Council et al. 2006). total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) analysis. it is essential that thorough. The use of alternative source waters. and the micro-organisms E. robust and reproducible testing procedures are developed in order to ensure that there is no increase in human health risk. such as greywater. pH. In Australia. At the single household scale there are prescriptive standards for technology accreditation (New South Wales Health Department 2005). there is currently no recommended testing for pathogenic micro-organisms. For multi-dwelling premises. viruses and intestinal parasites which may be pathogenic (Casanova et al. proving log removal of bacteria. New South Wales Government 2006). and is not prescriptive in testing requirements (New South Wales Department of Water and Energy 2007). there are no national guidelines for testing of household greywater systems. numerous strategies that include greywater treatment systems for water recycling in the home are being supported by government agencies (Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004. Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5). virus. SS.coli. better management of water supplies and implementation of policies to reduce wastewater discharges to receiving waters. In Australia. guidance (New South Water Health 2005) is in the form of a framework for the assessment of recycled water schemes. free chlorine (or other disinfection system efficiency). There is currently much focus. before widespread adoption of domestic greywater systems is approved. but not bacterial. turbidity. 2007). Previous studies have found increased risks to human health from viral. suspended solids (SS). Winward et al. There is no standard national testing method for greywater technologies in Australia and the research undertaken aids in the development of appropriate protocols and procedures for different scales of treatment and end uses of greywater. is being investigated and there are a wide range of technologies commercially available for greywater treatment. The NSW guideline recommends validation. both nationally and internationally. Birks and Hills 2007. and different states have different protocols and procedures for testing. protozoa and helminth surrogates. It is often recommended that the accreditation be used in conjunction with guidance documents for greywater use in single household residential premises (New South Wales Department of Energy Utilities and Sustainability 2007). Monitoring is recommended for the highest exposure risk level (for internal use and unrestricted irrigation) of BOD5. However. total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN).1. robust and reproducible method for testing greywater treatment technologies to Australian recycled water standards. verification and operational monitoring requirements based on the exposure risk level of the end use of the recycled water. coliphages and Clostridia. Surrogate micro-organisms for bacterial. 2004). Initially. which achieves one of the objectives of the protocol. parameters can be adjusted and controlled easily and comparative research assessment is possible. Advantages of a synthetic formulation are that quality is consistent.The monitoring programs suggested for both single residential and multi-dwelling premises do not necessarily validate the performance of the technology for pathogen removal. A disadvantage of synthetic greywater is that it will not mimic the variability in quality observed in real greywater. The quality parameter ranges of the synthetic greywater used in this study were selected to mimic the quality of real greywater. which contains a variety of personal hygiene and household products. therefore maximum log removal cannot be assessed. In order to address this potential issue of system performance validation and to enable a wide range of likely conditions to be assessed. A synthetic greywater will allow other users to test systems with a standard feed quality. et al. which outlines a risk assessment approach for assessing the impact of changes in greywater flows or quality. The formulation was based on an assessment of the market share of household products used in Australia (IbisWorld 2005). protozoan and helminth pathogens were used to assess greywater technology performance and were chosen in consultation with the Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 3 . literature values of per capita water usage for different appliances and a review of real greywater quality in Australia (Appendix 4). Real greywater has been used for research purposes in previous studies (Birks R. A further benefit of using synthetic greywater is that methods are easily repeatable by others. a batch chemical and physical separation process with UV disinfection and a semi-batch biological process with chemical disinfection (Table 1). Three different greywater treatment technologies were used in the development of the protocol. This range of process types allowed investigation of the appropriateness of selected surrogate micro-organisms and the suitability of the protocol to different process types. Table 1: Summary of technologies tested during protocol development Technology Process type Treatment process Disinfection process Maximum Flow rate (L/day) A Semi batch Biological with suspended media UV 600 B Batch Chemical flocculant dosing. limiting the feasibility of the assessment process. This was updated with current data collated on Australian greywater in order to ensure the quality parameters correlated to an average Australian residential greywater quality. to validate the performance of greywater treatment technologies. but it is variable in quality and may be impractical to collect and store. secondary treated effluent and clay. Jefferson et al. viral. The recommended field testing will not necessarily challenge the technology with high concentrations of pathogenic micro-organisms in the feed stream. UV and four stage filtration UV 1000 C Semi batch Settling. A possible approach for addressing this issue is suggested in Section 9. the approach taken in this study was to use a laboratory based testing process rather than field tests. Technologies were selected based on their method of processing: one semi-batch biological and UV disinfection process. quality data collated from international literature was used as the basis for parameter ranges. 2004. biological with fixed media Chemical (Cl/Br) 300 Section 3 outlines the development of a synthetic greywater. chemical testing and microbiological testing. Ottoson and Stenstroem 2003). more easily transferable testing methods to be developed. The use of surrogate organisms had the advantage of reduced Occupational Health and Safety requirements compared with the use of viable pathogens. The chemical testing included a range of physical. DHS and Smart Water Fund. The microbiological testing was designed to prove compliance with the log removal requirements for the selected surrogates recommended in recycled water guidelines (Environment Protection and Heritage Council et al. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 4 . Surrogates have been used in previous studies with greywater (Rose et al. The tracer study allowed assessment of the hydraulic integrity of the technology and provided the basis for flow. 2006).Victorian EPA. chemical and microbiological parameters which provided an indication of potential environmental and human health risks. Development of a robust and reproducible testing protocol will depend on the ease of use and quantification of the microbial species and surrogates used. inoculum dosing and sample collection frequency requirements of the chemical or microbiological testing. 1991. This three-stage approach allowed verification of system performance prior to the more complex and costly microbiological testing. This means testing facilities did not have to comply with high levels of microbiological containment and allowed simpler. as well as an assessment of system operational performance. The test method was developed as a three-stage process: tracer study testing. The three technologies (Figure 1) were installed by manufacturers and distributors and were tested as installed. The micro-organisms used for testing the greywater technologies are listed as Class 2 in the AS/NZ Standard 2243. a 1000 L custom built feed tank was used. The feed pump used in this study was a Davey M3061-0 with Torrium priming and a maximum flow of 5000 l/hr and 69 m maximum head. ‘Safety in laboratories . However. A T-piece pipe was connected to the outlet of the pump in order to ensure flows were tangential to the walls of the tank to aid in surface scouring and reduce foam generation. A submersible pump (a Grundfos AP12 40 04A1V with vortex impellor was used in this study) in the feed tank was used to continually mix the synthetic greywater for a minimum nine hour period prior to use.3) The flow of the greywater feed to the technology was monitored using a rotameter or an online mag-flow meter (a Turbo KP-G polypropylene lined meter was used in this study).3:2002. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 5 . Experimental set up System requirements The basic testing system components were (Figure 2): • Physical Containment Level 2 (PC2) laboratory • Feed tank • Submersible pump for mixing • Feed pump (specifications dependent on technologies tested and laboratory setup) • Pressure rated dosing pump • Online flow meter (flow range dependent on technologies tested) • Effluent storage tanks. Flows were adjusted using two valves and a recycling loop back to the feed tanks. A tank of this volume was required so large scale batches of the greywater could be produced and tested. Section 3. pH. spot samples could be taken and analysed to ensure consistency in feed quality. Temperature. Volumes of synthetic greywater fed to the technology during testing were monitored via a simple level measurement of the feed tank and crosschecked with the rotameter or flowmeter. Online monitoring of pH. Mixing of the greywater prior to use increased the temperature of the greywater and lowered the pH to the required parameter range (Table 3. Any operational or maintenance issues during the testing were addressed by the manufacturer.2. conductivity and turbidity were suggested in order to allow continuous monitoring of synthetic greywater feed. For the development of the synthetic greywater and testing of three greywater treatment technologies used to develop and validate the protocol. conductivity and turbidity were monitored online prior to a sampling point. installed between the feed tank and the technology.Microbiological aspects and containment facilities’ and a PC2 (Physical Containment Level 2) facility was required for the testing process. conductivity.Figure 1: Technologies tested during protocol development (L to R. One technology tested had a final product storage tank as an integral component of the technology (Figure 1. A peristaltic pump was used for taking the proportional samples. rather than the effect of storage. effluent and microorganism dosing point using dosing pump Mixing tank (1000 L) Online monitoring of pH. Technology A).) Clay. B and C) Product samples were taken as spot samples or as a proportion of the total outlet flow. A. depending on the technology. temperature Feed pump Sampling point Submersible mixing pump Rotameter or flow meter Technology to be tested or holding tank Figure 2: Schematic of the system layout Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 6 . providing details of outlet flow are available and outlet flows are relatively constant. This is the recommended method for sample collection. on treated greywater. (It is recommended that product samples are taken prior to any final storage of treated greywater in order to test technology performance. There are a number of reasons for this variability: use of different household products (and the different composition of products). Brandes 1978. varying tap water qualities and water usages. and the inclusion or exclusion of various waste streams in the greywater.3. The quantities given in the table below are for 100 L of greywater. The composition of greywater has been found to vary significantly between countries and regions (Siegrist R. 2002). Eriksson et al. The feed tank was filled with the required amount of tap water and the concentrated ingredient mixture added. These factors suggest that careful consideration needs to be given before using a formulation that has been developed in another country or region. including personal care products and detergents and additional laboratory chemicals in order to achieve the concentration ranges of various parameters as required.2. et al.L. Market share products were used where data was available (Appendix 1 – Synthetic greywater components). Procedure To prepare the synthetic greywater all ingredients. and Palmer A. except the clay and secondary effluent. Mixing the greywater for at least nine hours was found to decrease the pH into the correct range (Table 2) and also brought the temperature of the greywater into the desired range of 25-35°C. Recipe To meet the above requirements the formulation developed contained products expected to be found in average Australian households. 3. were weighed and mixed with 500 mL warm water in a blender at low speed for one minute. laundry only. Estimations of amount of products used were made and combined with average water usage data in order to calculate the amount of product to be used in the recipe (Appendix 2). The outlet of the pump in the feed tank required some modification to direct the outlet towards the feed tank walls to reduce entrainment of air and foaming in the feed tank.1. 2002). 3. 1976. bathroom only or laundry and bathroom combined. There were a number of requirements for synthetic greywater formulation for technology testing: • Mimic real greywater in composition • Provide a matrix that allows micro-organism and pathogen survival • Contain compounds in detectable concentrations identified as having detrimental environmental impacts in real greywater • Be reproducible and provide consistent quality between batches and between users. Walpole and Hartley 1993. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 7 . different householder behaviours. A submersible pump in the feed tank was used to mix the greywater overnight or for at least nine hours. Synthetic greywater The synthetic greywater formulation was a modified version of a recipe developed and used for testing greywater systems in the UK (Brown R. This mix of freely suspended micro-organisms and micro-organisms associated with particulate material provided an assumed worst case scenario for testing.7 Coles Own brand Shampoo/hand wash 72 Palmolive Laundry 15 Omo High Performance/ Omomatic concentrate Boric acid2 0.9 Analytical grade Clay (Unimin)1 5 Industrial grade Vegetable Oil 0.5 Analytical grade NaHCO3 2.14 Analytical grade Lactic acid 2.5 Analytical grade Na2PO4 3. as adding clay to the feed tank increased adhesion of clay to the feed tank’s walls and fitting. the bound micro-organisms being shielded from chemical and physical disinfection process if they are not removed by filtration. Secondary effluent was allowed to reach room temperature prior to dosing or addition of microbial inocula in order to reduce the potential for damage to the micro-organisms due to a rapid change in temperature.8 Analytical grade Secondary effluent3 2L Eastern Treatment Plant at Carrum (from secondary clarifier) OR 1 The properties of the Unimin clay are given in Appendix 3 2 Addition dependent on boron detection limit 3 Secondary effluent was stored (< 4°C) and used within 2 weeks of collection The clay and secondary effluent were mixed together and stirred using a magnetic stirrer for at least 15 mins prior to and during feed of the greywater technology. the microorganisms not bound to particulate being the smallest and more likely to pass through filtration process. The clay and secondary effluent mixture was added in–line via a peristaltic pump.25 Colgate Maximum Cavity Protection (regular) Deodorant 1 Mum Na2SO4 3. virus. Any micro-organism inocula (bacteria. protozoa and helminth surrogates) used for testing the greywater technologies were also added to the effluent and clay prior to dosing.5 UV TripleGuard Moisturiser 1 Dove Toothpaste 3.Table 2: Final synthetic greywater recipe (Formulation 4) Ingredient Product used Amount in 100L (g) unless otherwise stated Sunscreen 1. Further analysis of the ratio of Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 8 . the median of the parameters ranges for BOD. The results of the analysis of initial large scale batch testing showed that several parameters were outside of the desired range. Following this review. Quality Table 3 shows the expected water quality parameter ranges for the synthetic greywater produced using the recipe given in Table 2. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 9 . This abundance of coliforms in the environment may account for the higher than expected levels of total coliforms in the synthetic greywater. Whilst the E. in aquatic environments. Further investigation of total-N and total-P ranges is required as the median and averages for the current data analysed were significantly different from the initial parameter ranges suggested by Smart Water Fund (see Appendix 4). The microbiological parameters were more difficult to adjust and were largely dependent on the concentration of micro-organisms present in the secondary treated effluent. secondary effluent is not added to the synthetic greywater. the data sources were extended to other current Australian data collected from system technology manufacturers and Ecowise (Appendix 4) and international literature (Eriksson et al. Initially data from the ‘Smart Water Fund Testing Protocol for proposed technologies treating greywater’ was used to set parameter ranges (source data from (Jeppesen 1996)) but there were limitations in using this data. sodium and conductivity were reduced.3. with the results in Table 3 showing the average and standard deviation for the final formulation (presented in Table 2). 3.coli concentrations were in the desired range. The adjustments to the recipe are shown in Appendix 5 and the results of the corresponding large scale batches are shown in Appendix 6. The target parameter ranges (Table 3) used for the synthetic greywater formulation were based primarily on Australian greywater quality data. Several new ingredients were added and the quantities of some of the existing ingredients in the recipe were adjusted on subsequent batches until the results from the final large scale batch testing showed that the chemical and physical parameters were all within the expected range (Table 3). The chemical components of the recipe were found to be reproducible between batches. Subsequent review of published literature suggests that native micro-organism populations can have a significant influence on the survival of introduced micro-organisms (Walter et al. 2002). 1995). Thus. in soil and on vegetation. turbidity. This needs further clarification but it is recommended that when dosing microorganism inocula.micro-organism to clay concentrations is required in order to ensure a mix of suspended and particulate associated micro-organisms. Coliforms are abundant in the environment and are commonly found in the faeces of warm blooded animals. primarily that it was over ten years old. Results are an average of five batches for the formulation. which can vary. the total coliform concentration was 103 times the desired range. 400 250 .1 Parameter 1.6 ± 0.0 – 5.80 59.7 3 4 Total coliforms (cfu/100mL) 10 – 10 E.1 – 0.550 300 .400 322.4 Total Kjeldahl nitrogenN 3.4 ± 0.2 ± 6.80 60 .0 7.3 Magnesium - - 1.0 ± 3.3 BOD 150 .150 62.0 ± 0.102 F.3 ±1.200 130 .0 Calcium - - 7.coli (cfu/100mL) 101 .8 ± 0.180 146.0 6.5 0.0 Temperature 20˚ .400 276.0 3.6 Boron 0.1 Turbidity 60 – 80 NTU 50 – 70 NTU 52.5 – 8.0 TOC 50 .1 ± 4.6 ± 0.5 – 8.7 ± 5.5 Sodium 80 – 130 50 – 90 65.7 ± 21.1 Aluminium - Zinc 0.1 – 0.5 Total phosphorous-P 10 – 20 10 – 20 17.003 Conductivity (μS/cm) 450 .4 Nitrate <0.7 COD 250 .2 Nitrite <0.6 ± 12.5 0.3 ± 0.0 – 5.Enterococci (cfu/100mL) Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 3 4 106 – 107 102 – 103 102 – 103 10 – 10 1-100 10 .Table 3: Parameter ranges and quality of synthetic greywater Original range (Jeppesen 1996) Updated range Appendix 3 (mg/L unless otherwise stated) Results from final large scale batch (Formulation 4) Suspended solids 60 .30˚C 25˚ .1 – 0.150 50 .1 – 0.35˚C pH 6.0 3. 5 hours. The choice of tracer was discussed with the technology manufacturers prior to commencing the tracer studies to ensure that it would not interfere with the process of the technology or damage any media or bacterial growth on any media utilised. operating on a batch cycle. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 11 . the semi-batch process greywater treatment technology. therefore the conductivity does not return to zero after the first batch. Figure 3 shows tracer study testing results from Technology A. Tracer study A tracer study was used to determine the profile of flow for each technology prior to commencing chemical and microbiological testing. The maximum concentration at the outlet was observed after 9. After three consecutive salt-free feeds. which made estimation of greywater storage volume difficult and so the tracer study technique was utilised. The results show conductivity breakthrough observed at outlet at ~ 6 hours. The technology was then fed with ten subsequent 150 L batches of potable water per day over a period of three days. Other tracers could be used. However. θS (where θS= VT/Q. Further statistical analysis of the number of samples and replicates is required to ensure the testing regime demonstrates log removal. feed high inoculum dose for three 150 L batches • Continue to analyse product samples until the tracer study concentration returns to background levels i. or an additional batch time. This information was then used to determine the feed inoculum and product sample collection to be used when testing the performance of the technology in the removal of micro-organisms. The tracer studies were carried out by adding a salt dose to the first batch of water fed to the technology and then feeding further batches of clean water until the conductivity at the outlet of technology returned to background levels. if there were concerns regarding the effects on the process.B. is shown in Figure 4. The constant conductivity readings observed between the first and second and the second and third days are due to the technology being shut down overnight. Initially. The design of this technology was such that there was a small residual storage at the end of processing.e. The results of two technology tracer studies are presented in order to demonstrate the use of the method in developing sampling and run time protocols. The technology maximum daily flow rate was stated as 600 L/day (N. during the second feed batch of potable water to the technology. the sampling and run-time procedures of the testing protocol were to be based on the theoretical hydraulic retention time (HRT). such as Rhodamine B. The sodium chloride concentrations used did not affect the treatment processes and conductivity probes were used to continuously monitor and record the effluent during the tracer study. From examining the tracer study outlet profile the proposed microorganism test method for this first technology was: • Feed high inoculum dose until the tracer study peak product concentration is achieved i. collect product samples for a minimum of ten 150 L greywater batches Operating the testing in this manner aids in proof of log removal during testing and ensures that all potentially contaminated product is analysed. The tracer selected for the three technologies tested during the development of the protocol was sodium chloride. and VT is the total volume of greywater storage within a technology and Q is the rate of feed to the technology). the different types of treatment technology to be tested used numerous filtration and media types.e. The results of a salt tracer study for Technology C. the conductivity of product returns to background levels. to which one 150 L batch of high salt content feed was added.4. 100 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time (hours) Figure 4: Tracer study outlet Electrical conductivity – Technology C When testing this system for removal of micro-organisms.00 48. inoculum was dosed for three feed cycles and product was collected for a total of six feed cycles (twice the number observed for the tracer study outlet concentration to return to background levels).1200 Unit on standby overnight Feed 3 Conductivity (µS/cm) 1000 Feed 4 800 Feed 6 Feed 5 600 400 Feed 7 Unit on standby overnight Feed 1 Feed 10 Feed 11 Feed 12 200 Feed 8 Feed 9 Feed 2 0 0.00 Time (hours) Figure 3: Tracer study outlet Electrical conductivity – Technology A 1400 Electrical Conductivity (µS/cm) 1200 Feed 1 .00 36. This was done to ensure any micro-organisms that may be entrained in the technology media would be detected and was a different rationale to that used for the first technology.100 Feed 3 . Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 12 .00 24.00 60.00 12.100 Feed 2 . The electrical conductivity was measured as a surrogate measure for total dissolved solids. which provides a measure of the dissolved salt content or salinity. pH can also impact plant growth and soil structure and also provides an easy check that a technology is operating correctly. plant life and other water bodies (Jeppesen 1996). although knowledge of the entrainment of micro-organisms provides insight into the mechanisms of removal. and there is the possibility of eutrophication of surface waters. the recommendation for the protocol based on the results of tracer study is to feed high inoculum dose AND continue to analyse product samples until the tracer study concentration returns to background levels. Nitrate was also measured as this provides an indication of technology performance. On the other hand. Turbidity was also measured. magnesium and sodium was undertaken in order to obtain a value for sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). 5. Thus. Salinity will effect both plant growth and soil structure. The total organic carbon (TOC). were also monitored during chemical testing. The parameters were selected based on a literature review of components of greywater and investigation of greywater components likely to have detrimental impacts on soils. sodicity and metals. Analysis of suspended solids was carried out as part of the chemical testing for each technology as it provided an indication of the propensity of the treated greywater to cause physical blockage of soil pores or blockage of irrigation systems. in sandy soils all these parameters are more likely to affect the groundwater. both parameters provide an indication of the propensity for biological regrowth in the treated water. clayey soils are more affected by high salinity. This gave a preliminary indication of technology performance for bacteria removal and ensured the technology was operating correctly.1 Method Chemical components analysed for all of the technologies tested are shown in Table 4. Total phosphorous and total nitrogen were analysed during testing as these parameters provide a measure of the nutrient content of the treated water. In addition. In general. 1996. as this is an easy way to measure indicators of colloidal and suspended residual material. as secondary effluent was added to the feed. organic and non biologically degradable components.Enterococci.However. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 13 . Zinc was also included as levels approaching or above the guideline values for irrigation have been found in greywater (Christova-Boal. and provides a quick check of technology performance. Testing for calcium. an indicator used to assess the impacts of treated water on soil infiltration. The soil type to which the greywater is applied will have an effect on the impacts of different chemical constituents. Hypes. Aluminium is often present in personal care products so was also included in the testing. Total coliforms. it is not necessarily required to prove the performance of the technology in terms of log removal of micro-organisms. E. Chemical testing 5. chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biological oxygen demand (BOD5) were included as they provide a good surrogate measurement of biologically degradable. Both nitrogen and phosphorous are required for plant growth but can cause detrimental effects to both plants and open water bodies if present in excessive quantities. as was the rationale used for Technology A. The measurement of calcium and magnesium in conjunction with nitrogen and phosphorous will give an indication of the potential benefits of greywater use to plant growth.coli and F. 1974). 2 Results Testing for chemical and physical parameters was carried out for each technology on the feed and product water and included suspended solids.43 1 * Total P (mg/L) 16.7 6. Boron was included in initial analysis as it may be present in laundry detergents and is known to have acute toxicity to plants.2 5. Results are not reported here as they are not NATA accredited.2 ppm.2 8 95 COD (mg/L) 238 104 190 56 TKN (mg/L) 5. The pH.2 0.82 7. As the levels of boron in the greywater were below this limit they were not detected and therefore results for boron are not available. temperature and turbidity of the greywater feed were also monitored throughout all trials using on-line probes. pH and turbidity (see Table 4 for full list). The samples were analysed by a NATA accredited laboratory.9 16.48 1.6 18 0 TOC (mg/L) 43 29 50 33 Conductivity (uS/cm) 324 339 350 0 7.5 0. but the inclusion of these parameters for analysis when the tested technology utilises chemical disinfection. 5. the boron analysis method selected by the laboratory employed to carry out the sample analysis was not particularly sensitive and was not able to detect levels below 1.5 1.1 6.4 6.4 57 *increase observed Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 14 . Table 4: NATA laboratory results of chemical and bacterial testing Parameter Units Average product (mg/L) <5 Max product 13 % Removal (mg/L) Average feed (mg/L) 105.8 6 pH >95 Turbidity (NTU) 46.1 10.7 18 77 Total coliforms (cfu/100mL) >2419.0 BOD Suspended Solids (mg/L) 67.9 0 Magnesium (mg/L) 1.51 11 0 Nitrate (mg/L) 0. is recommended.4 1.Chlorine and bromine residual analysis was undertaken in-house where necessary.coli (cfu/100mL) 67 0 0 0 F.07 0.Enterococci (cfu/100mL) 850 0 0 0 Calcium (mg/L) 7. However.0 3.02 0. conductivity. Boron concentrations found in greywater (Friedler 2004) are often above the recommended maximum value for irrigation waters (Environmental Protection Authority Victoria 1991). conductivity.7 0 Sodium (mg/L) 64 67 68 0 Zinc (mg/L) 0. biological oxygen demand (BOD). Transport times to the external laboratory made NATA testing of chlorine and bromine impracticable.14 0 Aluminium (mg/L) 1.6 0 0 0 E. Diaper et al. Full details of the results for the three technologies tested can be found in the Technology Testing Reports (Diaper and Toifl 2006. Results show average feed and product concentrations and the maximum observed value in all product samples. Diaper and Toifl 2007).The results presented in Table 4 are for the semi-batch Technology C. Statistical analysis of the results requires further discussion. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 15 . 2006. The technology removed a high percentage of BOD and SS and all bacterial sampling found no detectable micro-organisms in the product sample. a biological process with fixed media and chemical disinfection. a number of other PC1 organisms were trialled which. A dilution series was prepared for both the E Coli and E faecalis inoculum cultures and Colilert and Enterolert analysis carried out to determine the concentration of each solution (following standard instructions supplied with the tests). would reduce the physical containment requirements for any testing facility for greywater treatment technologies. if successful. each containing a known quantity of micro-organisms.6 Microbiological testing During the microbiological testing of each technology. Inoculum concentrations of > 106 Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 16 . Three BioBalls. For example. Enterococcus hirae did not fluoresce clearly and determination of positive results was difficult given that the greywater can also produce slight background fluorescence due to components in washing powder and soaps. it is recommended that microbiological testing is suspended. further chemical testing is recommended in order to assess whether the technology is operating correctly. were spread onto tryptone soya agar plates (following manufacturer’s instructions) and incubated for 12-24 hours until the colonies had grown to a size where they could be easily removed. 6. The Escherichia coli strain ATCC 25922 was cultured using commercially available BioBalls. The Enterococcus faecalis was cultured in a similar way to the E. Should these parameters be outside the expected range. were spread onto brain heart infusion agar plates following manufacturer’s instructions and incubated for 12 24 hours. These IDEXX Laboratories recommended strains are both prescribed as micro-organisms requiring PC2 facilities (Australian Standard 2002). The Ringers™ solution and micro-organisms were then transferred aseptically from the plate into a clean sterile container. The plates were then incubated for 24 hours prior to harvesting the cells using 5 mL of Ringers™ solution and a sterile loop. using commercially available BioBalls. each containing 30 micro-organisms. The agar plates were incubated for approximately 24 hours prior to harvesting the cells. using 5 mL of Ringers™ solution and a sterile loop.1 Bacterial dosing method Escherichia coli (ATCC 25772) and Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC 19433) preparation and detection The surrogate strain selected for Escherichia coli was ATCC 25922 as it gave the most consistent results and is a recommended strain for use with Colilert tests kits (manufacturer). Coli. random samples of product water were analysed in house for pH and turbidity to provide a quick check of technology performance. Two BioBalls. All agar plates used during microbiological testing were made according to the instructions supplied with the media. Individual colonies were then harvested and spread onto new brain heart infusion agar plates. The Ringers™ solution and micro-organisms were then transferred aseptically from the plate into a clean sterile container. Individual colonies were then scraped from the two plates and spread onto new tryptone soya agar plates. The surrogate chosen for Faecal Enterococci was Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 19433 as it is also a strain listed by IDEXX Laboratories as proven to work with the Enterolert test. Should the chemical analysis prove the technology is not operating correctly. Prior to final selection of bacterial surrogates. Strains E Coli K12 and Enterococcus hirae were both trialled but these were found to give poor and inaccurate results with the Colilert and Enterolert test kits. 2005) and both have well documented detection and enumeration procedures (International Standard Organisation 1995. for this study. The ΦX174 coliphage was prepared by adding 1 mL of frozen stock of E. MS-2 is an f-RNA phage and ΦX174 is a somatic coliphage. 2003. 2003). The culture was placed in the incubator at 37°C for 2-3 hours until it reached mid log phase. Thus.6 and MS-2 pI = 3. For dosing a greywater technology. 1 L of secondary treated effluent with 100 L of greywater). Coli and E. A dilution series was prepared for each of the phage inocula and a double agar layer assay for MS-2 (International Standard Organisation 1995) and ΦX174 (International Standard Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 17 .9 (Dowd et al. Both MS-2 and ΦX174 have been used in previous wastewater (Mocé-Llivina et al. resistance to certain treatments. The reason for basing selection on charge rather than size is that. The amount of effluent dosed with each feed was 1% of the volume of greywater fed each time (e.g. 6. The bacteriophages selected were MS-2 and ΦX174. Phage preparation and detection The ΦX174 and MS-2 phages. and then added to the greywater feed using a dosing pump (a Prominent gamma/4-W was used in this study). CaCl2/glucose solution (1 mL per 100mL) was also added to the prewarmed TYGB. they have different isoelectric points.2 Virus surrogate dosing method MS2 and φX174 coliphage selection Previous studies comparing natural and laboratory cultures of bacteriophage in heat treatment of wastewater and sludge state that single phage dosing results cannot be extrapolated to all phages (Mocé-Llivina et al. removal at the molecular level will be predominantly influenced by charge rather than size. Product samples were taken after processing by the technology and analysed for E Coli and E. The MS2 bacteriophage was prepared by adding 1 mL of frozen stock of WG 49 (salmonella) host to 100 mL of prewarmed TYGB. Feed samples were taken as a proportion of the total inlet flow from the sample point prior to the technology. were initially sourced from the culture collection held by the University of NSW. Coli C to 100 mL of pre-warmed TYGB. faecalis inocula was mixed with secondary treated effluent and clay. Arraj et al. Feed volumes varied between 100 L and 225 L depending on the feed volume for each technology. 1998). Although they are a similar size (24 and 27 nm respectively). Then 1 mL of the ΦX174 coliphage (frozen stock) was added and the culture was further incubated at 37°C overnight. isoelectric points and their ease of use. CaCl2/glucose solution (1 mL per 100 mL) and Kanamycin solution (400 µL per 100 mL) were also added to the pre-warmed TYGB for this culture.cfu/100mL were required in order to prove a 7 log removal (minimum detection 100 cfu/100mL). as well as the WG 49 and E. faecalis using Colilert and Enterolert Quantitray analysis. Coli C hosts. The use of other viral surrogates for other technology types will require further investigation. The culture was placed in the incubator at 37°C for 2-3 hours until it reached mid log phase. 75 mL each of E. International Standard Organisation 2000). Then 1 mL of MS-2 phage (frozen stock) was added and the culture allowed to incubate at 37°C overnight. ΦX174 pI = 6. two bacteriophages were used and their selection was based on size. The number of feeds for which bacteria were dosed was determined by the results of the tracer study for each technology. for the greywater treatment technologies currently on the market in Australia. The concentration of spheres in the feed was approximately 103 / L. Diaper and Toifl 2007). Clostridium perfringens was analysed using the method described in AS/NZS 4276. The plates were incubated anaerobically at 37°C for 3 days.4 Helminth surrogate dosing method The surrogate selected for Helminths were 90 µm fluorescent latex microspheres (Fluoresbrite ® YG microsphere).Organisation 2000) was carried out to ensure that the concentration range was correct prior to dosing. Product water samples were assayed for MS2 and ΦX174 phage either in house or by a NATA accredited laboratory. One litre sample volumes were used as previous work had indicated that the product samples collected required concentration rather than the dilution described in the standard method.5 Micro-organism dosing results The results of the micro-organism dosing for the three technologies used in protocol development indicate variability in the log removals observed for the different treatment types (Diaper and Toifl 2006. The fluorospheres were added to the secondary effluent (1. to identify and count any fluorescent points detected.7 μm filter which was then analysed by visual inspection in UV box.17. The samples were analysed by filtration through a 15 cm diameter 2. The amount of effluent dosed with each feed was 1% of the volume of greywater fed.1 (2000) (Australian Standard 2000). Concentrations of spores in the inoculum were in the range 105 to 106 spores/100mL so that 7 log removal could be proven. Ten litre product samples were collected for analysis. Phage dosing was carried out in the same way as the bacteria dosing using 75 mL of each phage mixed with secondary treated effluent and clay. This solution was then incubated aerobically at 37°C for 3 weeks. 6. the cells were harvested from the plates using 5 mL of Ringers solution and a sterile loop.2 x 105 beads added) which was then dosed to the system with the synthetic greywater feed in the same way as for the other micro-organisms. Dosing the Clostridium perfringens solution was carried out in the same way as dosing for the bacteria and phage and 75 mL of the Clostridium perfringens solution was mixed with secondary treated effluent and clay and dosed to a technology. As greywater formulation Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 18 . Diaper et al. After incubation. The mixtures from all the plates were combined and the total volume made up to 150 mL with Milli-Q water. These were chosen as they are a similar size to Helminths and the fluorescence can be easily detected. then dosed to the technology via dosing pump for the duration of the feed. 6. The concentrations of each phage had to be at least 106 so that log 7 removal could be proven by any system tested. 6. 2006.3 Protozoa surrogate dosing method The Clostridium perfringens spores were prepared from frozen stocks obtained from the culture collection held by the University of NSW. In house analysis used the ISO standard methods for MS-2 (International Standard Organisation 1995) and ΦX174 (International Standard Organisation 2000). These stock solutions were used to prepare spread plates from 200 µL aliquots of stock on ten perfringens agar plates. A. will provide a worst case compared to 90 μm fluorospheres. Table 5: Example results of micro-organism log removal for Technology C Microorganism or surrogate Technology C (Biological + Chemical disinfection) E. if present • Latex fluorospheres are expensive to provide greater than 4 log removal • C. with no fluorospheres being detected in any product samples and all technologies providing a log 4 removal.and some methodologies changed throughout the development of the protocol. if size exclusion is the expected removal method. large volumes of samples needed to be processed in order to determine that no fluorospheres could be detected which was difficult for the turbid samples as the filters became blocked very quickly. However. 2002) and. et al. Additionally. The visual fluorescence detection method used for analysis of samples was problematic as it was difficult to see the fluorospheres in samples where the product water was turbid. The results for the fluorospheres were the same for all technologies. Further method calibration would be required in order to validate the procedure if helminth testing were included. the direct comparison of technology is not meaningful at this stage. it is recommended that a helminth surrogate is NOT incorporated in any future testing protocol because: • Detection method of surrogate is problematic • Helminth concentrations in greywater are likely to be very low.perfringens spores are 1-3 μm (Lovins W. perfringens spores 4 Fluorospheres 4 Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 19 . coli >7 Faecal enterococci >7 Bacteriophage MS-2 1 Coliphage φX174 6 C. volumes and timing) ƒ Results Phages ƒ Operation (feed cycles. If this testing protocol is to be developed as a national standard.au). volumes and timing) ƒ Results Clostridium perfringens ƒ Operation (feed cycles. volumes and timing) o Results o Comment Micro-biological testing o o o Bacteria ƒ Operation (feed cycles.smartwater. A suggested report template is provided below. Reporting The reports from the three technologies tested are available on the Smart Water Fund website (www. volumes.7. • System operation o Operational description (include schematic) o System specifications (flows. Incorporation of feedback and comment from regulatory authorities is required to progress and finalise these reporting requirements. reporting requirements will need to be specified. volumes and timing) ƒ Results • Other technology issues • Protocol and methodology refinements • Summary and recommendation. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 20 . The report contents are similar for all technologies and incorporate a ‘Protocol and methodology refinements’ section in addition to the description and results from the technology testing.com. treatment cycle) o Tracer study o Outline sampling regime • Synthetic greywater quality and variability • Chemical testing • o Operation (feed cycles. capacity. 8. secondary effluent is not added to the synthetic greywater. Some of these points are recommendations and discussion points while others require additional research to clarify. There are some points that require clarification before the testing protocol outlined in this report is developed to a national standard. Discussion and recommendations A robust and repeatable testing protocol for greywater treatment technologies which provides proof of removal of various micro-organisms is required. • When dosing micro-organism inocula. Furthermore. • Investigate the use of other tracers. there are some requirements for additional research work which will ensure the protocol is robust. The concentrations of boron in greywater would need to be confirmed by sending samples to a laboratory that has a very low limit of detection. it is recommended that microbiological testing is suspended • Boron analysis is not included in the feed or product analysis following further investigation of its likely presence in greywater. Locating the sample point as close to the technology as practically possible will allow these effects to be taken into consideration. for example. as start-up times for biological processes were found to be lengthy. surrogates based on size would be more appropriate. due to the potential competition between organisms in the effluent and inocula. • Should the chemical analysis prove the technology is not operating correctly. The surrogate selection for these trials was based on the charge of the surrogates rather than size as this was more relevant for the technologies that we were investigating. which could lower the number of organisms present. However for a membrane based technology. • Treatment technologies based primarily on biological processes are pre-commissioned prior to testing if possible. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 21 . The methodology proposed in this report bridges the gap between the current prescriptive testing procedures for single house installations and the framework approach recommended for larger scale applications. reliable and applicable to a range of technologies. Some of the recommendations which require discussion that have arisen during the development of the protocol are: • A helminth surrogate is NOT incorporated in any future testing protocol as surrogate quantification was not accurate and helminth concentrations in greywater are likely to be low. such as Rhodamine B. Suggested additional work includes: • Investigation of the use of other viral surrogates for other technology types which may be based primarily on size exclusion. The protocol is proposed to be applied for each technology (not each installation) and could be combined with a desk-based risk assessment (see Section 9) and field sampling that is less onerous than current requirements. Micro-organisms can attach to particulate material and particulate material can settle or adhere to feed pipework and so there may be some removal of micro-organisms in the pipework prior to the technology. if there are concerns regarding the effects of sodium chloride on the greywater treatment process. Another recommendation for the testing protocol is that the feed sample point is located closer to the technology (current setup has 4-5 m of pipework and flowmeter prior to technology). • Further analysis of the ratio of micro-organism to clay concentrations to ensure a mix of suspended and particulate associated micro-organisms. data collected recently from industry sources and some literature suggests that P levels are actually lower than N levels in the greywater.• Further investigation of Total-N and Total-P ranges is required as the median and averages for the current data analysed. This could be due to changes in detergent formulations with many manufacturers beginning to produce low phosphate detergents to be more environmentally friendly. However. were significantly different from the initial parameter ranges suggested by Smart Water Fund. The original parameter ranges suggested by SWF (1996) showed Total-P levels in greywater are greater than Total-N levels. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 22 . Preliminary development of the desk-based risk assessment has been undertaken and a Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) (Kletz 1999) type approach is recommended. Almost certain (3). As such. Likely (2) and Unlikely (1) (highlighted in yellow in Table 6). Table 6: Example of HAZOP assessment method Technology: System X Unit operation: Feed tank Guideword: None Risk Controls Deviation Potential causes Consequences No flow into system for extended period Normal operation i. The HAZOP process requires that the system be assessed component by component and utilises keywords. the assessment team should be multi-disciplinary in order to provide expertise in all potential health and environmental risks and include someone with knowledge and expertise in system operation (often the technology manufacturer). Major (3). This approach requires an understanding of the possible causes of failure of the technology and an assessment of their frequency and consequences. These keywords are used to identify causes and consequences for each deviation from normal operation.e. these issues are not assessed and a structured risk-based assessment is recommended in order to understand the likely impacts of these variations.e.e. greywater treatment systems will operate long term and be subject to large variations in greywater quantity and quality and particular householder behaviours. Future work The proposed testing protocol outlined in this document does not provide a complete assessment of technology performance and it is recommended that this protocol is combined with a desk-based risk assessment and field testing. High. medium and low risks can then be identified and appropriate controls can be suggested for high/medium risks if required i. such as ‘NO’. ‘LESS’ and ‘MORE’ to assess the impact of variations in system operation on each component. In the laboratory based testing protocol. In field situations. Moderate (2) and Minor (1).e. and the frequencies of the causes i.9. A quantitative scale can then be used to rank the consequences i. frequency x consequence score ≥6 (highlighted in red in Table 6). Holidays (3) Nuisance odours as untreated greywater stored in tank (2) (6) Redesign system to allow complete emptying of tanks Blockage in collection pipework (1) No drainage of greywater from supply point (2) (2) None Fault with level sensor (1) Tank overflow (2) (2) None Automatic system start up not initiated (3) (6) Overflow design for maximum flow No level sensing Incorrect installation (2) This assessment method is not yet fully developed for specific application to greywater technologies and further definition of keywords and deviations is required to ensure the Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 23 . Comment and discussion from regulatory authorities is required before further development of this process occurs. further development of necessary field monitoring and analysis is required in order to ensure the performance of the system is maintained in the longer term. In addition to the laboratory based testing and desk-based assessment.assessment is comprehensive. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 24 . omocareline. Following a series of divestments. including heavy-duty cleaners.au ) Ingredients as per package: • • • • • • • Anionic and non-ionic surfactants (Commonly used are alcohol ethoxylates and alkyl phenol ethoxylates) Optical brightener/fluorescer Enzyme (commonly used is proteinase) Alkalis Sodium polyphosphate Zeolite (synthetic ion-exchanging zeolites are commonly used) Polymer Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 25 . personal care products. It is probably best known for its toothpastes. Domestos. Colgate-Palmolive (extract from IbisWorld 2005) “In relation to this industry. Cashmere Bouquet. Palmolive are representative brands (see below). Sard and Spree. Nifti. Colgate Palmolive was the market leader in the body wash market (24 percent market share) and held second place in the general hard surface cleaner market (17 percent market share) and the laundry fabric softener market (25 percent). the operations of Colgate Palmolive Australia involve the manufacture and distribution of household cleaning. putting it in the top 50 spenders on media expenditure. Cuddly. Surf and Drive. Unilever was the leading manufacturer within the men's toiletries and soap segment commanding a 38 percent share of the $129 million market with its Rexona brand. Colgate.Appendix 1 – Synthetic greywater components Market share of products used Extracts from the IbisWorld report Soap & Other Detergent Manufacturing in Australia (28 July. 5way cleaning action by Unilever (Customer info: 1800 225 508. followed by Soft as Soap with 25. Palmolive. In 1999. floor cleaners and laundry powders. Fab. the company spent roughly $15 to $20 million in total on advertising for its various products.” Unilever Australia (extract from IbisWorld 2005) “In relation to this industry. Dynamo. During the year. and skincare.com. detergents and soaps. Total. Handy Andy. Cold Power. According to AC Nielsen figures released in mid 2002. Jif. Dove. Unilever is the market leader in a number of major market segments in this industry. Colgate. Omo.8 percent. It dominated the toothpaste segment with a 60 percent market share. Since the time of development of the synthetic greywater recipe more detailed market share information has been obtained and this information could be used to update the formulation. Also included is “Soft as Soap” brand which was acquired from Reckitt Benckiser in 2000-01 as well as the Fluffy & Castle brands acquired from Campbell Brothers in October 2004.4 percent of the market. 2005) suggest that Omo. A study by AC Nielsen found that Colgate-Palmolive was the overall market leader in the bar and liquid soap segment in 2000 with 36. Well known brand names include Ajax. remaining key brands include Lux. It was also thought to have a 32 percent share of the $585 million laundry market. laundry powders and liquids and cleaners.” Review of chemicals in household products used for synthetic greywater Laundry powder Omo High Performance concentrate 1kg. Unilever Australia is probably best known for its soaps. www. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 26 . made in Thailand (Customer info: 1800 802 307) Ingredients as per package: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Water Sodium Laureth sulphate Cocamidopropylbetaine Cocaminde DEA Lauryl glucoside Polyquaternium 7 Fragrance Glycol distearate Laureth-4 Sodium chloride Sodium sulphate Citric acid Poloxamer 124 Sodium styrene/acrylates copolymer DMDM Hydantoin Methylchloroisothiazolinone Methylisothiazolinone Tetrasodium EDTA Honey Dry milk powder Ci 19140 Ci 16035.10 -11 (1% @20°C). 24h by Procter and Gamble (Customer info: 1800 226 524) Active ingredients as per package: • Aluminium chlorohydrate (22%w/w) Other common ingredients in anti-perspirants • • Binders pH agents. Anti-perspirant Mum Dry Active. Ingredients as per Unilever Australasia MSDS Omo Concentrate powder • • • • • • • • Sodium carbonate (CAS-No 497-19-8) 30-60% Anionic surfactant 10-30% Nonionic surfactants <10% Sodium silicate (CAS-No 1344-09-8) <10% Fluorescer <10% Protease enzymes <10% Other ingredients determined not to be hazardous to 100% pH approx. Palmolive Soft Wash Milk and Honey 500 mL.• • Perfume Colour. regular flavour. Tartar control: toothpaste that are designed for tartar control commonly contain pyrophosphate.76% w/w. sorbitol.6 mg/mL Methyldibromo glutaronitrile 400 μg/L.6 mg/mL Methyldibromo glutaronitrile 400 μg/L. calcium phosphate. Flavouring agents: Used to improve the taste of toothpaste. Xylitol is a superior humectant but not commonly used. 140 g by Colgate (Customer info: Colgate Oral Care 1800 802 307) Active ingredients as per package: • Sodium monofluorophosphate 0. Dove Protecting Moisturising Lotion Active ingredients as per package: • • Octyl methoxycinnamate (5. The most common detergent is sodium lauryl sulphate. Common preservatives include sodium benzoate. and water. Humectants: to provide texture and retain moisture. common compounds used are calcium carbonate. Artificial dyes are used to colour red. Most toothpaste sweeteners are artificial and contribute very little to cavity formation. and alumina. Common humectants are Glycerin. green. triclosan and ethyl paraben. methyl paraben. methyl paraben. Titanium dioxide is used to make some toothpastes white.5%) Butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane (2.0%) Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 27 . Thickeners: Common thickeners are Carrageenan. Common examples are sodium benzoate. silica. and blue toothpastes. Toothpaste Colgate Maximum Cavity Protection. Other common ingredients in toothpaste: • • • • • • • • Abrasives: used to provide cleaning power. Preservatives: used to prevent growth of microorganisms in toothpaste. Detergents: used to create the foaming action and keep it from dribbling. Sunscreen UV Triplegard 75 mL by Boots Healthcare (New Zealand) (Customer info: 1800 226 766) Active ingredients as per package: • • • • • Octyl methoxycinnamate 80 mg/mL Oxybenzone 30 mg/mL Butyl methoxydibenzolmethane 40 mg/L Phenoxyethanol 1. Colouring agents: used to improve the appearance of toothpaste.Sunscreen UV Triplegard 75 mL by Boots Healthcare (New Zealand) (Customer info: 1800 226 766) Ingredients as per package: • • • • • Octyl methoxycinnamate 80 mg/mL Oxybenzone 30 mg/mL Butyl methoxydibenzolmethane 40 mg/L Phenoxyethanol 1. cellulose gum and xanthan gum. and ethyl paraben. A common sweetener used is Saccharin. • • Octyl salicylate (3. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 28 .0%) Phenylbenzimidazol sulfonic acid (2.0%). Also contains: • Methylparaben • Propylparaben • Phenoxyethanol • Iodopropynyl butylcarbamate • Fragrance. 20% bathroom. 3. 1.1 g deodorant for 130 litres bathroom greywater 3.4 x 88 g/household per day = 34. 15% laundry Shampoo and laundry detergent 30* g soap/shampoo/conditioner per shower/bath and 4 showers per day 9* g soap per handwash and 5 handwashes per day *Shampoo and soap account for all products used in shower/bath and sink except toothpaste Total of 165 g for 130 L of greywater 1 scoop laundry detergent 88 g 88 g per laundry wash Average wash rate 0.5 g sunscreen and 7.5g laundry detergent and 120g shampoo/soap/conditioner 100 L requires 15 g laundry detergent and 72g shampoo Deodorant.5 g toothpaste for 130 litres bathroom greywater 230 L daily contains 1. Yarra Valley Water 240 kL/hh/year.25 g toothpaste Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 29 .Appendix 2 – Estimation of amount of products used Average volume of greywater produced is 230 l/household/day* 43%* or 100 l/household/day greywater from washing machine 57%* or 130 l/household/day greywater from bathroom *Melbourne Water Map.1 g deodorant.5 g deodorant. sunscreen and toothpaste Estimated amounts used per household per day 1.5 g for 100 L laundry greywater 230 L daily contains 34.5 g toothpaste 100 L requires 0.5 g sunscreen for 130 litres bathroom greywater 7.4 washes/household per day 0.5 g sunscreen. 3. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 30 .Appendix 3 – Properties of Unimin clay The particle size distribution and chemical and physical properties of the Unimin clay used in the synthetic greywater are provided below. 0 – 5.400 361 290 Total coliforms (cfu/100mL) 103 – 104 103 – 104 68200 23500 201 202 Faecal coliforms (cfu/100mL) Greywater Technology Testing Protocol Average of collected data Median of collected data 76 45. Table 7: Synthetic greywater parameter ranges compared to Australian greywater data Parameter Original range Suspended solids (mg/L) 60 .1 11. The values were then used to assess whether parameter ranges needed to be widened or reduced or the whether the median of range should be increased or reduced. bathroom only or laundry and bathroom combined). in which median and average values were calculated for all the data. with some householders being very environmentally aware (minimising water and product use and using products with environmental labelling). whilst others were not. single residential houses and multi-residential dwellings) and sources (laundry only.550 300 .200 130 .12 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen – N (mg/L) 3.g. As expected. averages or mean values and median data.6 Conductivity (μS/cm) 450 .0 3.Appendix 4 – Real greywater quality Greywater quality data was collected and collated from literature values or data from greywater technology testing programs run by system manufacturers or independent testing organisations (e.0 – 5. the householder behaviour varied between the different sites. In addition.0 11. not all raw data was available for analysis and so there was a mix of spot samples.80 Updated range (mg/L unless otherwise stated) 60 . This variability in the type and sources of data collected did not merit detailed statistical analysis of the data and so a simple analysis was used.9 3. Ecowise). a caravan park. there was a large variability in the analysed parameters as the greywater quality data came from a variety of different dwelling types (a youth hostel.6 Sodium (mg/L) 80 – 130 50 – 90 96 73 Total phosphorous – P (mg/L) 10 – 20 10 – 20 5. In addition.5 31 .180 172 109 Turbidity (NTU) 60 – 80 50 – 70 52 43.80 BOD (mg/L) 150 . 1 9. Ecowise) Laundry (pers comm. Ecowise) Bath and shower (pers comm.6 3.5 177.Table 8: Australian greywater quality data Healthy home (Gardner and Millar.25 FC >2000 39 Average TC 0.6 10.1 Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 385 1.5 170 1.6 12.1 11.1 73 21.53 21. 200?) Landloch Pty Ltd 2005 Christova Boal et al 1996 Jeppesen 1996 Eight person household (pers comm.7 82 290 144 39 43.5 Laundry only Max and min only Sullage Median 787 100.5 TP 0.25 76 45.5 10.14 Average 5 to 10 samples Average 9 to 15 samples Average Na 38 988 300 <1 23500 96 73 68163 23500 201 202 32 .75 Median 180 73.8 189 52.35 1037 21.5 14 15 2.57 15.5 9. 200?) Inkerman shower and hand basin (CRC Report.6 159 210 113 335 11.67 AVERAGE MEDIAN 172 109. 2005) Lavendar Park (pers comm.5 11.53 21. 2003) Caravan park (Flapper et al.5 109.5 3.9 601 8..6 361 290 5. 2004) Comments BOD SS Median 97 48 Max and min only Spot sample 130 43 TKN Total .53 15. Ecowise) YHA 1 (pers comm.4 11.9 100 180000 100 202 33. Ecowise) Westwyck (CRC Report.13 10.28 52 43.6 332 Average 5 to 10 samples Median 34 33.1 3.5 103.3 9.9 3.67 6. Ecowise) Laundry and bathroom (pers comm.37 0. Ecowise) YHA 2 (pers comm.6 5.5 79.125 51.2 10.25 38 25 21.6 Average Average Average Median 57 68.8 4.5 90 23 5.N Turbidity EC 6. Ecowise) Bio-flow Maidstone Bio-flow Williamstown Bio-flow Mt Evelyn Highett House (Tunaley. 25 Deoderant Mum 0.0 Na2SO4 Analytical Grade 5 3.14 0.5 NAHCO3 Analytical Grade ^ 2.5 1.7 Shampoo Palmolive 72 72 72 Laundry Detergent Omo High Performance/ Omomatic concentrate 15 15 15 Antifoam Silfoam SEA39 1.0 1.0 1 ml ^ ^ Urine Vegetable Oil Coles Own brand 0.14 Urea Analytical Grade ^ 0.25 3.5 1.7 0.5 As required ^ Secondary Effluent Carrum STP 1L 1L 1L Boric Acid Analytical grade ^ 0.5 Na2PO4 Analytical grade ^ ^ 3.5 0.7 0.5 1.25 3.Appendix 5 – Modifications to synthetic greywater formulations Ingredient Product used Formulation 1 Formulation 2 Formulation 3 Amount in 100L (g) Amount in 100L (g) Amount in 100L (g) Unless otherwise stated Unless otherwise stated Unless otherwise stated Sunscreen UV triplegaurd 1.5 Unimin Clay Industrial Grade 5 5.9 ^ = Ingredient not included Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 33 .0 5.5 Toothpaste Colgate 3.5 3.5 2. 4 ± 17.3 ± 0.6 102 – 103 83 ± 113 67 ± 100 7.4 ± 0.2 ± 28.0 – 5.1 1.6 COD 250 .4 ± 0.08 ± 0.014 ± 0.0 6.5 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen-N 3.5 0.8 ± 0 <1.5 ± 0.007 ± 0.5 – 8.4 4 >2419.2 64.0 Conductivity (μS/cm) 450 .1 ± 0.coli (cfu/100mL) 101 .4 7.3 ± 14 67 ± 47.9 70.4 Boron 0.1 Calcium - - 6.9 ± 0.6 >2419.30˚C 25˚ .9 3 4 Total coliforms (cfu/100mL) 10 – 10 E.004 1.2 ± 0.1 ± 35.2 ± 0.7 ± 5 56.2 46.8 ± 5.2 8.0 6.1 – 0.02 ± 0 Total phosphorousP 10 – 20 10 – 20 9.1 5.5 224 ± 15 238 ± 11.3 ± 5.5 ± 1.5 ± 1.400 298 ± 29.5 0.7 7.4 ± 0.35˚C pH 6.5 281 ± 7.3 Magnesium - - 1.7 27.2 125 ± 11 105 ± 13.6 9.150 50 .400 171.1 ± 25.2 Nitrite 0.0 – 5.102 48.1 Aluminium - Zinc 0.0 4.1 ± 0.2 16.9 ± 1.04 1.1 – 0.Appendix 6 – Changes in parameter ranges for large scale batches using different synthetic greywater formulations Parameter Original range (Jeppesen 1996) Suspended solids 60 .1 – 0.4 ± 0.1 Nitrate <0.3 Temperature 20˚ .5 0.1 BOD 150 .2 0.1 – 0.400 250 .1 ± 5.8 ± 17.4 TOC 50 .01 0.7 ± 0.7 ± 0.550 300 .5 0.0 3.4 ± 1.5 ± 12 43 ± 6.4 324 ± 12.Enterococci (cfu/100mL) Highlighted cells show out of range parameters Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 34 .4 5.5 < 2.5 – 8.5 ± 1.1 850 ± 1111 3 10 – 10 F.80 Updated range Appendix 3 (mg/L unless otherwise stated) 60 .1 Turbidity 60 – 80 NTU 50 – 70 NTU 32.150 35.0 Sodium 80 – 130 50 – 90 57.6 7.005 0.180 84.80 Results from large scale batches Formulation 1 Results from large scale batches Formulation 2 Results from large scale batches Formulation 3 51.200 130 .01 <0. et al." Water Science and Technology 50(2): 165-172.. C. 50(11): 2547-2559. E. Guidelines for wastewater irrigation. and S. et al. Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks (Phase 1). 11. C. Dowd. Toifl M.. Diaper." Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64(2): 405-410. and M. Toifl (2006). 1313-1320. Water Microbiology. (1998). (2006). Birks R. (2002). Bohatier. Melbourne. "A survey of the microbial quality of recycled household graywater. Pillai S. Smart Water Fund. (2006). K." Environmental Technology 25: 9971008.E. (2006). "Characterisation of Indicator Organisms and Pathogens in Domestic Greywater for Recycling. Soap and other detergent manufacturing in Australia.. S. 2547-2559. "Characteristics of grey wastewater. Colbourne J.. and Toifl M. and M. Friedler. Environmental Protection Authority Victoria (1991). et al. L. E.. (1998). (2004). (2006). (2001). Australian Standard (2002).. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Report. Smart Water Fund. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Report." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 129(1-3): 61-69. no.Detection and enumeration of bacteriophages . "Microbiological water quality in a large in-builidng water recycling facility. Greywater technology testing: Test 3 Everwater grey2blue. 37. M. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council." Urban Water 4: 85-104. C. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Report. Pillai. Toifl (2007). 1978. Smart Water Fund. Assoc. "Characteristics of effluents from gray and black water septic tanks. S.Part 1: Enumeration of F-specific RNA bacteriophages. Birks. et al. Toifl. (2005). Greywater Technology testing: Test 4 New Water Aqua Reviva. Greywater Technology Testing: Test 2 Pontos Aquacycle 900. UK.D. Water Resour.. (2002). Diaper C. Brown R. Water quality . "Delineating the specific influence of virus isoelectric point on virus adsorption and transport through sandy soils. and Toifl M. Dowd S. 50. BSRIA. 5. (1978). Smart Water Fund. A. et al. Auffarth. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Report. no.. E. Eriksson. Oct 2001. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 35 . et al." Journal of Applied Microbiology 98: 516-524. Vol. V. Greywater Technology Testing: Test 2 Pontos Aquacycle 900. et al. IbisWorld (2005). Hills (2007).References Arraj. pp. Water Reclamation Standard: Laboratory testing of systems using greywater. "Comparison of bacteriophage and enteric virus removal in pilot scale activated sludge plants. Safety in Laboratories Part 3: Microbiological Aspects and Containment Facilities.. (2007).]. Little. Diaper. M. "Quality of Individual Domestic Greywater Streams and its Implication for On-Site Treatment and Reuse Possibilities. (2004). CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Client Report. CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Client Report. Environment Protection and Heritage Council. Casanova. et al. "Delineating the specific influence of virus isoelectric point on virus adsorption and transport through sandy soils. Brandes. Greywater Technology testing: Test 4 New Water Aqua Reviva. International Standard Organisation (1995). National Water Quality Management Strategy. and Palmer A. R. Am. Smart Water Fund. 37(5): 1313-1320. pp.. Diaper C. J. et al." Applied and Environmental Microbiology 64(2): 405-410. Vol. D. Greywater technology testing: Test 3 Everwater grey2blue. Diaper." Journal of the American Water Resources Association [J. Diaper C. ISO. Australian Standard (2000)." Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation. Smart Water Fund.. M. " Water Research 37(3): 645-655. Sydney." Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division EE3: 533-548. T.. (1999). Sun. Ottoson. S. Jefferson. Walpole. (1976). J. NSW Guidelines for: Greywater reuse in sewered.. R. Domestic greywater treatment systems accreditation guidelines. Metropolitan Water Plan: 38-39.International Standard Organisation (2000). (2004).S. Witt M. "Survival of Bacterial Indicator Species and Bacteriophages after Thermal Treatment of Sludge and Sewage " Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69(3): 1452-1456." Environmental Engineering Science 19(6): 453-465.A. et al. Jeppesen. Baumgartiger. Taylor J. B. J.Interim Guidance." Ecological Engineering 32(2): 187197. Melbourne. Report No. New South Wales Department of Energy Utilities and Sustainability (2007). Australia. et al. Sydney. et al. Stenstroem (2003). and T.Detection and enumeration of bacteriophages . (2003). Taylor & Francis. B. New South Water Health (2005). "Growth and reduction of microorganisms in sediments collected from a greywater treatment system. (2002). Muniesa. C. NSW. R. B.Part 2 Enumeration of somatic coliphages. Our Water Our Future Action Plan. A. Water Quality . (1991). Lovins W. (1993). Greywater and sewage recycling in multi dwellings and commercial premises . Walter.. "Viruses in river waters and sediments in Austria. "Greywater characterisation and its impact on the selection and operation of technologies for urban reuse. New South Wales Government (2006).. Winward. Greywater Technology Testing Protocol 36 . Interim NSW Guidelines for Management of private recycled water schemes. Model Guidelines for domestic greywater reuse for Australia. Avery. Palmer. M. G." Water Science and Technology 31(5-6): 395-401. "Microbial quality and persistence of enteric pathogens in graywater from various household sources. L. P.L. Urban Water Research Association of Australia. 107. Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment (2004). (1996)." Water Research 25(1): 37-42.. Mocé-Llivina. (1995). Rose." Water Science and Technology 50(2): 157-164. "Characteristics of rural household wastewater. Kletz. Sydney. Ottoson. "Micro-organism removal by membrane systems. New South Wales Health Department (2005). Characteristics of australian wastewaters. et al.. et al. A. and T. Hazop and Hazan. M." Letters in Applied Microbiology 36: 168-172. Eds. Siegrist R. et al. Stenstroem (2003). J. "Faecal contamination of greywater and associated microbial risks. (2007). Hartley. "A study of the microbial qulaity of grey water and an evaluation of treatment technologies for reuse.. G.. et al. International Standard Organisation. New South Wales Department of Water and Energy (2007). single household residential premises. A.. L. J. and K.