Cited by 272Wastewater Treatment and ReuseConstructed Wetlands for Wastewater TreatmentUrban Stormwater Management Solutions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 132 of the 134 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of greywater characteristics and treatment processes

Open access
Boyjoo, Yash, Pareek, Vishnu K., Ang, Ming·2013·Water Science and Technology

Abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive literature review of different characteristics of greywater (GW) and current treatment methods. GW is domestic wastewater excluding toilet waste and can be classified as either low-load GW (excluding kitchen and laundry GW) or high-load GW (including kitchen and/or laundry). This review provides information on the quantity of GW produced, its constituents (macro and micro), existing guidelines for wastewater reuse, current treatment methods (from storage to disinfection) as well as related costs and environmental impacts. Moreover some successful examples from various countries around the world are examined. The current preferred treatments for GW use physical and biological/natural systems. Recently, chemical systems like coagulation, adsorption and advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) have been considered and have been successful for low to moderate strength GW. The presence of xenobiotic organic compounds (XOC), which are hazardous micropollutants in GW, is emphasised. Since conventional treatments are not efficient at removing XOC, it is recommended that future studies look at chemical treatment, especially AOPs that have been found to be successful at mineralising recalcitrant organic compounds in wastewater.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2166/wst.2013.675

Cites

132 of 132 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Phosphates in greywater range between 4 and 14 mg/L.

    “which also range between 4 and 14 mg/L (Boyjoo et al. 2013).”

    From Greywater Characteristics, Treatment Systems, Reuse Strategies and User Perception—a Review (2018) · cites this paper as Boyjoo et al. 2013

    The phosphate row in the greywater characteristics table (indexed under CONCLUSIONS; page unavailable) reports 0.5–1.3, 0.09, and 1 mg/L for the samples with phosphate values. These are below the claimed 4–14 mg/L range; the review does not give that range for greywater phosphate. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Greywater has a very low biodegradability potential.

    “Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) levels are high but give very low BOD/COD ratios (0.20 ± 0.07) indicating a very low biodegradability potential.”

    From Greywater characterization and handling practices among urban households in Ghana: the case of three communities in Kumasi Metropolis (2017) · cites this paper as Boyjoo et al. 2013

    The Introduction says greywater’s COD:BOD ratio can be as high as 4:1, and the GW characteristics section says laundry greywater can be much less biodegradable than shower water. These passages support low biodegradability for some greywater, but not the blanket claim that greywater has very low biodegradability; our copy also does not give the cited BOD/COD value of 0.20 ± 0.07. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Real time hourly flows in the night (8pm to 5am) could not be determined because of safety and security concerns at the site, and this approach was not alarming since low overnight flows were expected from such a small population.

    “Real time hourly flows in the night (between 8pm and 5am) could not be determined because of safety and security concerns at the site, and this approach, although not preferred, was not alarming since low overnight flows were expected from such a small population [6,7] .”

    From Domestic greywater flows and pollutant loads: A neighbourhood study within a university campus in Ghana (2020) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says household greywater production peaks before and after normal working hours and varies with household occupancy, which supports the expectation of lower overnight flows. It does not establish flows specifically from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. or assess the cited site's population. The site's inability to measure flows and its safety concerns are observations by the citing authors, not findings of this review. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Nitrogen in greywater ranges between 4 and 74 mg/L.

    “range between 4 and 74 mg/L”

    From Greywater Characteristics, Treatment Systems, Reuse Strategies and User Perception—a Review (2018) · cites this paper as Boyjoo et al. 2013

    The total-nitrogen row in the review’s table (labelled CONCLUSIONS; page unavailable) includes a value as low as 4.1 mg/L, consistent with an approximate lower bound of 4 mg/L. The passages found do not report 74 mg/L as an upper bound for greywater nitrogen, so the claimed range is not fully supported. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Kitchen waste is the primary source of nitrogen in greywater.

    “Kitchen waste are the primary source of nitrogen in greywater”

    From Greywater Characteristics, Treatment Systems, Reuse Strategies and User Perception—a Review (2018) · cites this paper as Boyjoo et al. 2013

    The “GW characteristics and reasons for concern” section says kitchen greywater is high in nutrients and can increase greywater’s COD:N:P ratio. It does not say kitchen waste is the primary source of nitrogen in greywater or compare its nitrogen contribution with other sources; no page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 134 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Gulyas, H.  Greywater reuse: concepts, benefits, risks and treatment technologies. In: International Conference on Sustainable Sanitation: Food and Water Security for Latin America, Brazil.
  2. Gulyas, H., Choromanski, P., Furmanska, M., Muelling, N. & Otterpohl, R. a Photocatalytic oxidation of biologically treated greywater in the presence of powdered activated carbon. In: International Conference on Sustainable Sanitation: Food and Water Security for Latin America, Brazil.
  3. Gulyas, H., Reich, M. & Otterpohl, R. b Qualitative non-target screening of trace organics in greywater treated in vertical- flow constructed wetlands. In: International Conference on Sustainable Sanitation: Food and Water Security for Latin America, Brazil.
  4. Jacobs, H. E. & Van Staden, S.  Direct on-site grey water reuse -an illicit or illustrious option? In: Water Institute of South Africa 2008 Biennial Conference & Exhibition, Sun City, South Africa.
  5. Morel, A. & Diener, S.  Greywater Management in Low and Middle-Income Countries, Review of Different Treatment Systems for Households or Neighbourhoods. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Dübendorf, Switzerland.
  6. Scheumann, R., Merz, C., Atasoy, E., Murat, S., Baban, A., ElHamouri, B. & Kraume, M.  Greywater treatment with membrane bioreactors: comparison of three different reactors operated with synthetic and real greywater. In: 7th Aachen Conference Water and Membranes, Germany.
  7. Watercorporation Australia  Information Sheet: Greywater Reuse and Recycling, available at www.watercorporation. com.au/waterforever. WHO (World Health Organization)  Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater: Vol. 4. Excreta and Greywater Use in Agriculture. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Boyjoo, Y., Pareek, V. K., & Ang, M.
Affiliations
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • Department of Chemical Engineering, Curtin University, Perth, WA, 6102, Australia
Corresponding author
Boyjoo, Yash
Venue
Water Science and Technology
Published
2013-04-01
Volume
67
Issue
7
Pages
1403-1424
ISSN
  • 0273-1223 (ISSN-L)
  • 1996-9732
OpenAlex
W2324672848
Cited by
272
References
134
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6
FWCI
1.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Water Science & Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Urban Stormwater Management Solutions
Keywords
greywater, greywater treatment, greywater reuse, micropollutants, xenobiotic organic compounds, advanced oxidation processes, coagulation, adsorption, disinfection, treatment costs, environmental impact, domestic wastewater
MeSH terms
Public Opinion, Water Purification, Recycling, Wastewater

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review