Effects of greywater irrigation on plant growth, water use and soil properties

Brought to you by:

Journals

Books

Shopping cart

Resources, Conservation and Recycling Volume 54, Issue 7, May 2010, Pages 429–435

Effects of greywater irrigation on plant growth, water use and soil properties U. Pinto

, B.L. Maheshwari

,

, H.S. Grewal

Show m ore

doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.09.007

Get rights and content

Abstract Glasshouse experiments were conducted to examine the effects of greywater irrigation on the growth of silverbeet plants, their water use and changes in soil properties. The experimental treatments included in the study were: irrigating with 100% potable water (control, treatment T0 ), irrigating with 100% greywater (treatment T1 ), irrigating with a mixture of greywater and potable water in 1:1 ratio (treatment T2 ) and irrigating alternate with potable water for one irrigation and greywater for the next (treatment T3 ). The pH and EC values of the greywater used in the study were 10.5 and 1358 μS/cm respectively. Results showed that greywater irrigation had no significant effect on soil total N and total P after plant harvest, but there were significant effects on the values of soil pH and EC. Furthermore, there were no significant effects of greywater irrigation on plant dry biomass, water use and number of leaves. For the treatment that involved irrigating with 100% greywater (treatment T1 ), there was a significant increase in soil pH and EC when compared with the control and the other two irrigation treatments. The study indicated that irrigating silverbeet plants with potable water and greywater in an alternate pattern (treatment T3 ) had soil pH and EC levels similar to that of irrigation with 100% potable water. This also meant that irrigating alternate with potable water and greywater could reduce some of the soil health risks associated with the reuse of greywater.

Keywords Silverbeet; Greywater; Irrigation; Soil properties; Plant biomass; Water uptake; Vegetable crops

1. Introduction Water is a scarce resource and ensuring sustainable water supply, especially in view of climate change scenarios, has become a significant challenge globally (Abusam, 2008, Jenerette and Larsen, 2006 and Lundqvist et al., 2005). The water is also imposing threats to the socio-economic development and maintenance of eco-systems around our cities and towns (Lake and Bond, 2007). All the major Australian cities and most towns are currently under severe water restrictions, and as a result the availability of water for urban and peri-urban irrigation has been significantly impacted (Yiasoumi et al., 2008). The extended drought in Australia during the last few years has lead to a greater emphasis being placed by the Local, State and Federal Governments to develop policies and on-ground actions for conserving and recycling water. One of the ways by which we can reduce the pressure on town water supplies is to reuse greywater for irrigation around home. The use of domestic greywater for irrigation is becoming increasingly common in both developed and developing countries to cope with the water scarcity. While published practical guidelines for the reuse of domestic greywater for irrigation are being made available by government agencies involved in water management and regulation, there are still a number of issues related to human, soil and plant health risks and environmental pollution due to the reuse. As a result, there are often community concerns towards the reuse of greywater for irrigation around homes. For the greywater reuse to become a mainstream water recycling practice, we need to examine these issues and concerns and seek answers to specific questions and develop guidelines with local data to ensure the sustainability of greywater reuse. The main aim of this study was to (i) understand the effects of greywater reuse for irrigation on plant growth and water use, and (ii) examine changes in soil pH, EC and nutrient contents (total N and total P) due to greywater irrigation.

2. Greywater reuse Greywater is the wastewater from bath tub, shower area, hand wash basin, laundry and kitchen sink, and this water is of lower quality than drinking water (Erikkson et al., 2002, Ottoson and Stenstrom, 2003 and Palmquist and Hanaeus, 2005). Greywater excludes foul or blackwater from toilets and urinals. Soaps and detergents are the major component of greywater (Jefferson et al., 1999). Greywater is usually less polluted than municipal wastewater due to the absence of human excretions (urine and faecal matter) and toilet paper. From the point of view of wastewater production in urban landscapes, greywater is usually

Sign in

Help

Biblioteka Politechniki Lodzkiej

considered to be high volume with a lower level of pollution while blackwater is low volume with a higher level of pollution (Neal, 1996). The reuses of greywater may include irrigation around homes, golf courses, parks and other open spaces, toilet flushing, groundwater recharge and industrial evaporative cooling (Okun, 1997 and Ottoson and Stenstrom, 2003). In arid regions, a significant part of the water requirement for the landscape around homes can be met with the greywater generated within the household (Rose et al., 1991). Studies that examined the potential of greywater reuse to save fresh water supplies reported savings in the range of 30–50% when greywater is reused for toilet flushing and irrigation (Jeppesen, 1996). When greywater is reused, particularly for garden irrigation, considerable volumes of high quality water can be saved. Important parameters to consider for the sustainability of greywater reuse are its pH, electrical conductivity, suspended solids, heavy metals, faecal coliform, Escherichia coli, dissolved oxygen, biological and chemical oxygen demands, total nitrogen and total phosphorus ( Dixon et al., 1999a, Birks and Hills, 2007 and Erikkson et al., 2002). The chemical and physical characteristics of greywater are quite variable among households due to the type of detergents used, type of goods being washed, life style of occupants and other practices followed at household levels. In one study, Erikkson et al. (2002) found kitchen wastewater had the highest EC while hand basin and shower had the lowest. They also observed that if the greywater has originated from laundry, the pH range tends to be between 8.0 and 10.0, while that originated from other domestic sources it ranged between 5.0 and 8.7. Highly alkaline pH in the range of 9.3–9.5 was reported by Dixon et al. (1999b) for the greywater from washing machines. Reuse of greywater for growing plants may affect the microbial activity in the rhizosphere that degrades the surfactants and the use by plant for transpiration (Garland et al., 2000). The effectiveness of microbial communities associated with the rhizosphere and the physiology and internal dynamics of plants play an important role in greywater reuse. Thus, the rate of surfactant degradation and the extent of microbial persistence in the soil and plants are important considerations for the reuse of greywater for irrigation. Also, greywater has the potential to increase the soil alkalinity if applied on garden beds over a long-time. ChristovaBoal et al. (1996) observed that the reuse of greywater with pH in excess of 8 can lead to increased soil pH and reduced availability of some micro-nutrients for plants, and thus affecting the growth of plants. Phytotoxicity of greywater reuse is another issue that impacts on the widespread recycling of greywater. The phytotoxicity of the reuse is mainly due to the anionic surfactant content that alters the microbial communities associated with rhizosphere. The phytotoxicity effects of greywater reuse on different plants are highly variable. For example, Erikkson et al. (2006) performed a growth inhibition test for algae and a shortterm acute assay for willow trees (often regarded as an exotic weed in Australia) to evaluate the phytotoxicity of greywater from different sources. It was found that kitchen and laundry waters were toxic to both algae and willow trees, while bathroom water was toxic to algae only. They also reported a substantial reduction in transpiration rate of willow trees when the pH of the water was above 9.0. Willow trees indicated insensitivity to pollutants whereas algae indicated a significant growth reduction at higher test concentrations.

3. Materials and methods 3.1. Experimental details The steps followed during the glasshouse experiments are summarised in Fig. 1. The experiments were conducted under controlled environmental conditions (22 °C and 50% humidity) at University of Western Sydney, Australia. The four irrigation treatments included in the study were: (i) irrigating with 100% potable water (control, treatment T0 ), (ii) irrigating with 100% greywater (treatment T1 ), (iii) irrigating with a mixture of greywater and potable water in 1:1 ratio (treatment T2 ), and (iv) irrigating alternate with potable water for one irrigation and greywater for the next (treatment T3 ). Considering that silverbeet is common garden plant and ease with which it can be grown in glasshouses, silverbeet plants were selected in the present study to examine the effects of greywater irrigation on plant and soil parameters.

Fig. 1. Flow chart describing key steps follow ed during the glasshouse study. Figure options

A completely randomized design was used in these irrigation treatments, and each treatment had seven replications. The experimental design also included two pots without plants for each treatment. The aim of having the pots without plants was to observe the effects of different irrigation treatments on soil properties in the absence of plants. There were two reasons why we used less number of replications for the ‘pots without plants’ when compared with the ‘pots with plants’. Firstly, for the ‘pots without plant’ for each treatment, the variability in the various parameters of interest (e.g., soil pH, N, P, and water loss from pots) is mainly due to soil, whereas in the ‘pots with plants’ it is due to both soil and on-going growth of plants. This means there is an inherently higher variability in the pots with plants when compared with that in pots without plants. For this reason, less number of replications for the pots without plants is justified with little impact on the accuracy of the overall statistical analysis. Secondly, considering the volume of work required in water use monitoring and irrigation applications on daily basis and the cost and effort involved in soil chemical tests for the additional 20 (5 × 4) pots, we had to limit the number of replications for the pots without plants for each treatment to two only. Greywater used in the study was prepared by mixing 0.7 g of a commonly available detergent (Spree Matic Concentrate™) in 1000 mL of potable water. The resulting average values of pH, EC, total N and total P of the greywater along with those of potable water are given in Table 1. The pH and EC values of this prepared greywater were similar to the average values reported in the literature (Howard et al., 2005, Gross et al., 2005 and Wiel-Shafran et al., 2006). Table 1. Key chemical properties of potable w ater and greyw ater used in the study. Greyw ater and tap w ater quality Sample

pH

EC (μS/cm)

TN (mg/L)

TP (mg/L)

Grey w ater

10.5

1358.0

0.2

4.4

100% potable w ater

7.0

277.0

0.16

0.00 Table options

Soil for the study was obtained from a local garden supplier. It was air dried and sieved through 2 mm sieve to remove any pebbles or non-soil material, and then it was mixed thoroughly to obtain uniform soil material. Key properties of the soil were determined in the laboratory to characterise the soil used, and the properties at the time of planting and after harvest are given in Table 2. Table 2.

Changes to soil properties w ith use of potable w ater and greyw ater. Changes in soil properties pH

EC (μS/cm)

TN (mg/kg)

TP (mg/kg)

Treatment

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

100% GW

6.9

7.9

126.2

306.3

324.0

347.8

103.4

126.6

100% soil only

6.9

7.9

126.2

317.0

324.0

342.7

103.4

153.8

50% GW

6.9

7.8

126.2

202.6

324.0

289.5

103.4

112.6

50% soil only

6.9

7.6

126.2

329.0

324.0

398.5

103.4

157.4

PW-GW

6.9

7.3

126.2

195.5

324.0

324.5

103.4

102.2

PW-GW soil only

6.9

7.7

126.2

270.5

324.0

394.3

103.4

140.8

100% PW

6.9

7.1

126.2

155.0

324.0

254.8

103.4

105.3

100% PW soil only

6.9

7.0

126.2

252.0

324.0

327.8

103.4

118.5 Table options

Silverbeet seeds were initially sown in seeding mixture, and normal potable water was used for establishing the seedlings. Once seedlings achieved required growth, healthy seedlings were selected for planting in the study. Before planting the seedlings, each pot was filled with air dried soil to a constant weight of 4 kg. Uniform seedlings of similar size and vigour were selected for transplanting in pots representing different irrigation treatments. During the study, water was applied in the pots as per irrigation treatments described earlier (treatments T0 to T3 ). The soil moisture was brought close to the field capacity of soil at the time of each irrigation. Extra-care was taken not to over-irrigate the pots to avoid drainage at the bottom of the pots. To account for the increase in pot weight due to plant growth over time, a fixed plant weight of 60 g was added to the base weight of all pots at 30 days after planting. This plant weight was decided based on the average plant weight increase determined by harvesting from four spare pots included for each treatment in the study. It should be noted that the spare pots were additional to the seven pots used as replications for different treatments. Plants in all the treatments were harvested at 60 days after planting. After the harvest of the plants, their shoots and roots were separated for the measurement of biomass related parameters. All the roots were washed and root volume was obtained by submerging the roots in a known volume of distilled water in a measuring cylinder, and the volume of water displaced provided the root volume. Shoots and roots were weighed for the wet biomass and were oven dried for 48 h at 65 °C to obtain the dry biomass.

3.2. Data collection and analysis Water quality parameters measured in the study included pH, EC, total N and total P values. The volumes of water applied at each irrigation were recorded to determine the total water used in each treatment. Soil samples from each pot were taken before planting and after the harvest of silverbeet plants to determine the changes in soil properties due to greywater irrigation. The properties measured included pH1:5 , EC1:5 , total soil organic N and total P. The whole biomass of silverbeet plants was considered as yield. The roots and shoots of the plants were oven dried at 65 °C to determine their dry weights. The data relating to plant yield, dry matter weight, water use and soil properties were statistically analysed to understand the treatment effects on plant growth, water use and soil properties. Differences between the means of root and shoot dry biomass, and soil properties (pH, EC, total N and total P) before planting and after harvest were subjected to the analysis of variance (ANOVA at 0.05 significance level). The least significant difference (LSD at p = 0.05) was used to assess the differences among pairs of treatment means and the F values of the ANOVA indicated the significance.

4. Results and discussion 4.1. Plant growth Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show the effects of the various irrigation treatments on the values of shoot and root dry biomasses and root volume. The statistical analysis of data indicate that shoot and root dry biomass were not significantly affected by any of the irrigation treatments. However, there was a trend of slight reduction in shoot and root biomass by irrigating silverbeet with 100% greywater (treatment T1 ) when compared with other treatments. Similar to root and shoot dry weights, the root volumes were not significantly influenced by different irrigation treatments (Fig. 4). The root volume was the highest the treatment that involved irrigating with water containing a mixture of greywater and potable water (treatment T2 ) and the lowest under the treatment that involved irrigating alternate with potable water for one irrigation and greywater for the next (treatment T3 ).

Fig. 2. Effects of different irrigation treatments (T0 to T3) on shoot dry w eight of silverbeet (N.B., the effects w ere statistically nonsignificant). Figure options

Fig. 3. Effects of different irrigation treatments (T0 to T3) on root dry w eight of silverbeet (N.B., the effects w ere statistically nonsignificant). Figure options

Fig. 4. Effects of different irrigation treatments (T0 to T3) on root volume of silverbeet (N.B., the effects w ere statistically nonsignificant). Figure options

The results of the present study suggest that there are no apparent detrimental effects of greywater irrigation on plant growth for any of the treatments considered in the study. However, these results are in sharp contrast with the findings of the past studies that suggested some detrimental effects of greywater on plant growth (Bubenheim et al., 1997 and Wiel-Shafran et al., 2006). For example, one previous study relating to lettuce plants grown using soil medium indicated ‘chlorosis’ within 30-day period (Wiel-Shafran et al., 2006). In another study, which used liquid medium and Igepon-42, showed toxicity symptoms after 4–6 h by ‘browning’ of lettuce roots and suppression of root dry mass within 24 h (Bubenheim et al., 1997). Rhizosphere is the immediate narrow region around roots which is usually covered with a thin layer of soil. Rhizosphere provides a suitable interface for both microbes and plants roots to form an ‘association’ which is beneficial for either party in terms of fulfilling their nutrient requirement (Atlas and Bartha, 1998). Such microbial communities associated with the plant roots are capable of biodegrading surfactants and other organic components in greywater (Federle and Schwab, 1989). This means, the extent of toxicity effects of greywater irrigation probably rely heavily on the effectiveness of microbes in the roots. Some past studies (Bubenheim et al., 1997 and Federle and Schwab, 1989), using Igepon-42, alkylbenzene sulphonate as anionic surfactant and linear alcohol ethoxylate as non-ionic surfactant, have shown the effectiveness of microbial communities associated with roots of Walderman's Green lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), duckweed (Lemna minor) and roots of cattail (Typha latifolia), degrading the synthetic detergent and eliminating the phytotoxic effects of them. It is likely that the microbes associated in the rhizosphere of silverbeet in the present study had successfully reduced the toxicity effects of greywater we applied over 60 days, thus not affecting the growth of plants. The type of microbes present around the plant roots in different soils may also cause variation in the tolerance of species and genotypes. In addition, it appears that silverbeet probably had a positive association with microbes responsible to detoxify the effects of greywater in the rhizosphere. Alternatively, the variety of silverbeet used in the current study may be more tolerant to any toxic effect of greywater reuse. This means, there may be some crops and varieties that are more likely to tolerate the toxic effects of greywater reuse

than others. In particular, this warrant a further study to examine whether there is any genetic aspect of silverbeet that helps in tolerating the effects of greywater reuse. As a follow up to this glasshouse study, the next step will be to examine the effects of the specie variation on tolerance to greywater reuse of commonly irrigated home garden plants under field conditions.

4.2. Plant water use Similar to plant growth attributes, the values of cumulative water use by silverbeet plants under different irrigation treatments during the study period were similar to each-other, and statistically there was no significant difference in the water consumption over 60 days (Fig. 5). For all the treatments, as can be seen from Fig. 5, there was relatively less water used during early growth of plants, and the water use increased progressively in each treatment and followed the pattern of plant growth. Using soil evaporation data from pots without plants, further analysis of the water use data indicate that the average transpiration amounts of each treatment reached a maximum value after 33 days of planting and then started to decline as plant aged. It is assumed that transpiration percentages of each plant started at a lower value and steadily increased to a maximum value with the growth of the plants, and then slowly started to decline as plants began to mature.

Fig. 5. Effects of different irrigation treatments (T0 to T3) on w ater use by silverbeet plants (N.B., the effects w ere statistically nonsignificant). Figure options

Overall, the results of the present study suggest that irrigating with greywater does not affect water uptake of silverbeet plants for the growth period (60 days) considered in the present study. The non-significant effects of greywater irrigation on plant growth and water use in this study may be due to the higher level of tolerance of silverbeet plants to the detergent present in laundry greywater. The relatively short growth period of silverbeet plants may have also influenced the non-significant effects of greywater on plant growth.

4.3. Soil pH Fig. 6 shows the effect of different irrigation treatments of soil pH at the end of study for both in pots with plants and without plants. Irrigating silverbeet with 100% greywater (treatment T1 ) resulted in a significant (p < 0.05) increase in soil pH when compared with the control (treatment T0 ). Also, there was very little difference in soil pH between the control (treatment T0 ) and treatment T3 . Overall the soil pH in all the treatments increased at the end of experiment after harvesting silverbeet when compared with soil pH at the beginning of the experiments.

Fig. 6. Effects of different irrigation treatments (T0 to T3) on soil pH after silver beet harvest (N.B., the effects w ere statistically significant). The letters a and b above the columns indicate the treatments w ith different letters are significantly different. Figure options

All soil samples except the ones from the control treatment had pH values above 7.0. The pH values of soil under treatments T1 and T2 were close to 8.0. The results of the present study suggest that the long-term application of greywater could lead to an increased soil alkalinity over time, but the possibility of increase in soil pH could be reduced by following a practice that involved irrigating alternate with potable water and greywater (treatment T3 ). Soil pH greatly affects the availability of a range of soil nutrients such as phosphorus, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum and zinc for plant growth, and the pH value between 6 and 7.5 is usually considered optimal for growth of many plants and microbial health of soil. Therefore, extra-care must be taken

when soil pH falls below 6 or rises above 8.2 (Hanlon et al., 1999 and De Clercka et al., 2003). This means, a regular pH monitoring of soil irrigated with greywater may be needed and any increase in soil pH above 7.5 needs to be corrected by adding gypsum to lower the pH.

4.4. Soil EC Fig. 7 shows the effect of different irrigation treatments of soil pH at the end of study for both in pots with plants and without plants. When compared with the control treatment, irrigating silverbeet with 100% greywater (treatment T1 ) resulted in a significant increase in soil EC. Irrigating with water containing a mixture of greywater and potable water (treatment T2 ) in the absence of plants had the highest EC (329 μS/cm), while the control treatment had the lowest EC (153 μS/cm) of the treatments included in the study. Furthermore, there was no clear trend for EC values for different treatments involving pots with plants and those without plants. In general, EC values observed in the present study were in the recommended range of 0– 1500 μS/cm, which are considered optimal for growth of most plant types and activities of soil microbes (De Clercka et al., 2003).

Fig. 7. Effects of different irrigation treatments (T0 to T3) on soil EC after silver beet harvest (N.B., the effects w ere statistically significant). The letters a and b above the columns indicate the treatments w ith different letters are significantly different. Figure options

Overall, the results of this study indicate accumulation of salts when irrigating with detergent rich greywater. However, the level of salt accumulation could be different in the context of garden beds when compared with the glasshouse study since surface runoff and leaching may occur due to rain in the case of garden beds. The results of this study indicate that irrigation strategy that includes irrigating alternate with greywater and potable water is likely to reduce the risk of salinity in soil. However, further research is required to investigate the long-term accumulation of salts in the soil by different sources of water.

4.5. Total nitrogen and phosphorus There were no significant differences in total soil N after harvest of plants for any of the treatments although there was a trend of higher total N in soil irrigated with 100% greywater (treatment T1 ) when compared with the control (Fig. 8). The values of total N for soil irrigated with greywater varied between 290 and 394 mg/kg, and these values were somewhat similar to those observed by Wiel-Shafran et al. (2006) (385 mg/kg) for greywater irrigation of lettuce. Wiel-Shafran et al. suggested that this accumulation of N in soil is correlated to the concentrations present in the greywater. Download PDF Search ScienceDirect

Export

Advanced search

Fig. 8. Effects of different irrigation treatments (T0 to T3) on soil total N after silver beet harvest (N.B., the effects w ere statistically nonsignificant). Figure options

Similar to the total N, the total P after harvest was also not significantly influenced for any of the treatments included in the present study when compared with the control (treatment T0 ) (Fig. 9). There was a trend of greater total P in 100% greywater irrigation (treatment T1 ) when compared with the control. The treatment that involved irrigating alternate with potable water and greywater (treatment T3 ) had the total P values similar to that for the control. Thus, it is further evident that irrigating alternate with potable water and greywater could reduce some of the risks associated with the reuse of greywater.

Fig. 9. Effects of different irrigation treatments (T0 to T3) on soil total P after silver beet harvest (N.B., the effects w ere statistically nonsignificant). Figure options

The detergent and quality of water also affect the amount of total N and total P accumulated in soil. When investigating the quality of greywater from laundry sources, past studies indicated a wide variation in the soil total N and total P values. For example, Christova-Boal et al. (1996) reported the total N and total P values ranged between 1 and 40 mg/kg and 0.062 and 42 mg/kg respectively, while Howard et al. (2005) reported those values ranging between 3.5 and 31 mg/kg and 0.2 and 93 mg/kg respectively. The wide variation in these values was probably due to the type of detergent used. The values of the total N (0.21 mg/kg) and total P (4.42 mg/kg) in the present study, using the prepared 100% greywater, lie on the lower side of the range reported in the above studies. As such, further research is warranted to understand the accumulation of N and P in soil due to irrigation with greywater with higher levels of N and P concentrations.

5. Conclusions •

The study revealed that for the plant type examined (i.e., silverbeet), irrigation with 100% greywater had no significant effects on plant biomass (both root and shoot biomass) and water use. Also, the effects of greywater reuse were non-significant for the total N and total P contents of soil after the plant harvest.

•

There was a significant increase in soil pH and EC with 100% greywater irrigation when compared with the control and the other two irrigation treatments.

•

Irrigating silverbeet with potable water and greywater in an alternative pattern had soil pH and EC similar to that of irrigation with 100% potable water. This also meant that irrigating alternate with potable water and greywater could reduce some of the soil health risks associated with the reuse of greywater.

References Abusam, 2008 A. Abusam Reuse of greywater in Kuwait International Journal of Environmental Studies, 65 (2008), pp. 103–108

View Record in Scopus | Full Text via CrossRef | Citing articles (8) Atlas and Bartha, 1998 A.R. Atlas, R. Bartha Microbial ecology—fundamentals and applications Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., CA, USA (1998)

Birks and Hills, 2007 R. Birks, S. Hills Characterisation of indicator organisms and pathogens in domestic greywater for recycling Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 129 (2007), pp. 61–69

View Record in Scopus | Full Text via CrossRef | Citing articles (26) Bubenheim et al., 1997 D. Bubenheim, K. Wignarajah, W. Berry, T. Wydeven Phytotoxic effects of greywater due to surfactants Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 122 (1997), pp. 792–796

View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (16) Christova-Boal et al., 1996 D. Christova-Boal, R.E. Eden, S. Mcfarlane An investigation into greywater reuse for urban residential properties Desalination, 106 (1996), pp. 391–397

Article |

PDF (682 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (125)

De Clercka et al., 2003 F. De Clercka, M.J. Singera, P. Lindertb A 60-year history of California soil quality using paired samples Geoderma, 114 (2003), pp. 215–230

Dixon et al., 1999a A. Dixon, D. Butler, A. Fewkes Water saving potential of domestic water reuse systems using greywater and rainwater in combination Water Science and Technology, 39 (1999), pp. 25–32

Article |

PDF (568 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (86)

Dixon et al., 1999b A. Dixon, D. Butler, A. Fewkes, M. Robinson Measurement and modelling of quality changes in stored untreated greywater Urban Water, 1 (1999), pp. 293–309

Erikkson et al., 2002 E. Erikkson, K. Auffarth, M. Henze, A. Ledin Characteristics of grey wastewater Urban Water Journal, 4 (2002), pp. 85–104

Erikkson et al., 2006 E. Erikkson, A. Baun, M. Henze, A. Ledin Phytotoxicity of grey wastewater evaluated by toxicity tests Urban Water Journal, 3 (2006), pp. 13–20

Federle and Schwab, 1989 T.W. Federle, B.S. Schwab Mineralization of surfactants by microbiota of aquatic plants Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 55 (1989), pp. 2092–2094

View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (24) Garland et al., 2000 J.L. Garland, L.H. Levine, N.C. Yorio, J.L. Adams, K.L. Cool Greywater processing in recirculation hydroponic systems: phytotoxicity, surfactant degradation and bacterial dynamics Water Research, 34 (2000), pp. 3075–3086

Article |

PDF (646 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (40)

Gross et al., 2005 A. Gross, N. Azulai, G. Oron, Z. Ronen, M. Arnold, A. Nejidat Environmental impact and health risks associated with greywater irrigation: a case study Water Science and Technology, 52 (2005), pp. 161–169

View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (41) Hanlon et al., 1999 E.A. Hanlon, G.V. Johnson, B.J. Jones, Y.P. Kalra, R.P. Miller, P.N. Soltanpour, R. Tucker, D.D. Warnke, M. Watson (Eds.), Soil analysis—handbook of reference methods, CRC Press, Washington, DC (1999)

Howard et al., 2005 E. Howard, R. Misra, R. Loch Laundry greywater potential impact on toowoomba soils—final report National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture, University of Southern Queensland, Queensland (2005)

Jefferson et al., 1999 B. Jefferson, A. Laine, S. Parsons, T. Stephenson, S. Judd Technologies for domestic wastewater recycling Urban Water, 1 (1999), pp. 285–292

Jenerette and Larsen, 2006 G.D. Jenerette, L. Larsen A global perspective on changing sustainable urban water supplies Global and Planetary Change, 50 (2006), pp. 202–211

View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (1) Jeppesen, 1996 B. Jeppesen Domestic greywater re-use: Australia's challenge for the future Desalination, 106 (1996), pp. 311–315

Article |

PDF (522 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (41)

Lake and Bond, 2007 P.S. Lake, N.R. Bond Australian futures: freshwater ecosystems and human water usage Futures, 39 (2007), pp. 288–305

Article |

PDF (190 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (31)

Lundqvist et al., 2005 J. Lundqvist, C. Tortajada, O. Varis, A. Biswas Water management in megacities Ambio, 3 (2005), pp. 267–268

View Record in Scopus | Full Text via CrossRef | Citing articles (13) Neal, 1996 J. Neal Waste water reuse studies and trial in Canberra Desalination, 106 (1996), pp. 399–405

Article |

PDF (616 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (8)

Okun, 1997 D.A. Okun Distributing reclaimed water through dual systems American Water Works Association, 89 (1997), pp. 52–64

View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (38) Yiasoumi et al., 2008 W. Yiasoumi, H.S. Grewal, B.L. Maheshwari, B. Simmons Evaluating water saving using smart irrigation and harvesting systems Irrigation Australia Conference, Melbourne (2008)

Ottoson and Stenstrom, 2003 J. Ottoson, A.T. Stenstrom

Faecal contamination of greywater and associated microbial risks Water Research, 37 (2003), pp. 645–655

Article |

PDF (167 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (116)

Palmquist and Hanaeus, 2005 H. Palmquist, J. Hanaeus Hazardous substances in separately collected grey and blackwater from ordinary Swedish households Science of the Total Environment, 348 (2005), pp. 151–163

Article |

PDF (265 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (56)

Rose et al., 1991 J.B. Rose, G.-S. Sun, C.P. Gerba, N.A. Sinclair Microbial quality and persistence of enteric pathogens in greywater from various household sources Water Research WATRAG, 25 (1991), pp. 37–42

Article |

PDF (500 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (76)

Wiel-Shafran et al., 2006 A. Wiel-Shafran, Z. Ronen, N. Weisbrod, E. Adar, A. Gross Potential changes in soil properties following irrigation with surfactant rich greywater Ecological Engineering, 26 (2006), pp. 348–354

Article |

PDF (349 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (66)

Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 4570 1235; fax: +61 2 4570 1787. Copyright © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Recommended articles

Greywater reuse for irrigation: Effect on soil prop… 2010, Science of The Total Environment

m ore

Use of domestic greywater for small-scale irrigati… 2011, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C m ore

Effect of treated grey water reuse in irrigation on … 2010, Desalination

m ore

View more articles »

Citing articles (17)

Related book content