Grey Water Definition

Grey water gets its name from its cloudy appearance and from its status as

being between fresh, potable water (known as "white water") and sewage water

("black water"). Grey water is wastewater from showers, baths, washbasins,

washing machines and kitchen sinks.

While kitchen wastewater is not recommended for use as grey water if

untreated. Grey water does not include wastewater from toilets, urinals, or

bidets. This is referred to as black water (water containing human excrement).

Grey water can be collected from some or all of these sources and, after

treatment, used for purposes around the home such as toilet flushing or garden

watering that do not require drinking water quality.

Benefits of Grey Water Treatment

Recycling grey water not only reduces the consumption of water, it also

reduces the volume of water discharged into the sewerage system. Consumers

with water meters could therefore save money on both their water supply and

wastewater bills.

There are many ecological benefits of grey water recycling could be

sumerized as follows:
Lowering the fresh water use

Grey water can replace fresh water in many instances, saving money and

increasing the effective water supply in regions where irrigation is needed.

Residential water use is almost evenly split between indoor and outdoor. All

except toilet water could be recycled outdoors, achieving the same result with

significantly less water diverted from nature.

Less strain on septic tank or treatment plant

Grey water use greatly extends the useful life and capacity of septic

systems. For municipal treatment system by decreasing the wastewater flow

which in turn means higher treatment effectiveness and lower treatment costs.

Less energy and chemical use

Less energy and chemicals are used due to the reduced amount of both

freshwater and wastewater that needs pumping and treatment. For those

providing their own water or electricity, the advantage of a reduced burden on

the infrastructure is felt directly. Also, treating your wastewater in the soil

under your own fruit trees definitely encourages you to dump fewer toxic
chemicals down the drain.

Highly effective purification

Grey water is purified to a spectacularly high degree in the upper,

most biologically active region of the soil. This protects the quality of natural

surface and ground waters.

Groundwater recharge

Grey water application in excess of plant needs recharges groundwater.

Plant growth

Grey water enables a landscape to flourish where water may not otherwise be

available to support much plant growth.

Reclamation of otherwise wasted nutrients

Loss of nutrients through wastewater disposal in rivers or oceans is a subtle, but

highly significant form of erosion. Reclaiming nutrients in grey water helps to

maintain the fertility of the land.

Uses of Recycled Grey Water

Grey water can be used untreated, or it can be treated to varying degrees to

reduce nutrients and disease-causing microorganisms. The appropriate uses of

grey water depend on both the source of grey water and the level of treatment.

Recycled water is most commonly used for non potable (not for drinking)

purposes, such as agriculture, landscape, public parks, and golf course irrigation.

Other non potable applications include cooling water for power plants and oil

refineries, industrial process water for such facilities as paper mills and carpet

dyers, toilet flushing, dust control, construction activities, concrete mixing, and

artificial lakes. Although most water recycling projects have been developed to

meet non potable water demands, a number of projects use recycled water

indirectly for potable purposes. These projects include recharging ground water

aquifers and augmenting surface water reservoirs with recycled water. In ground

water recharge projects, recycled water can be spread or injected into ground

water aquifers to augment ground water supplies, and to prevent salt water

intrusion in coastal areas.

The use of gray water at decentralized sites for landscape irrigation and toilet

flushing reduces the amount of potable water distributed to these sites, the

amount of fertilizer needed, and the amount of wastewater generated,

transported, and treated at wastewater treatment facilities. In other words, water

reuse saves water, energy, and money.

Grey Water Recycling Health Concerns

Health risks are often cited by regulators as reasons for requiring high-tech

expensive systems although there are no recorded instances of grey water

transmitted illness in the US. However, grey water may contain infectious

organisms. Bear this in mind when designing and using a system. A poorly

designed system could become a pathway for infecting people.

There are two main principles for safety are considered as follows:

Grey water must pass slowly through healthy topsoil for natural purification to

occur.

Precautions:

Prevent contact or consumption by using gloves when cleaning grey water

filters, and washing your hands after contact with grey water.

Avoid accidental connections between freshwater and grey water by labeling

grey water plumbing, including garden hoses.

The percentage of household water that is grey water varies regionally and

between households, depending on the primary uses of water in a home and how

efficiently water is used, but is generally between 50% and 80% of the total

water used.
 Typical Composition of Grey Water Compared With Raw Sewage

Grey water composition is varied accourding to the source of the grey water.

Table 1 shows the contaminants of grey water from different sources.

Water Source Character

ists

Bleach, Foam, High pH, Hot water, Nitrate, Oil and

Automatic Clothes Grease, Oxygen

Washer demand, Phosphate, Salinity, Soaps, Sodium,

Suspended solids, and Turbidity

Bacteria, Foam, Food particles, High pH, Hot water,

Automatic Dish Odor, Oil and grease, Organic matter, Oxygen

Washer demand, Salinity, Soaps, Suspended

 solids, and Turbidity

Bacteria, Hair, Hot water, Odor, Oil and grease,

Bath tub and shower
Oxygen demand,

Soaps, Suspended solids, and Turbidity

Bacteria, Food particles, Hot water, Odor, Oil and

Sinks, including grease, Organic matter, Oxygen demand, Soaps,

kitchen Suspended solids, and Turbidity

Table 2: chemical and physical quality of grey water compared with raw

sewage

Grey water Raw

Parameter Unit
sewage

Range M

Suspended mg/l 45 - 330 1 100 –

Solids 1 500

Turbidity NTU 22 - > 200 1 NA

BOD 5 mg/l 90 - 290 1 100 –

 6 500

Nitrite mg/l <0.1– 0.8 0 1 - 10

Ammonia mg/l <1.0 - 5 10 – 30

25.4 .

Total mg/l 0.6 – 8 5 – 30

27.3
phosphorous

Sulphate mg/l 7.9 - 110 3 25 - 100

pH 6.6 – 8.7 7 6.5 – 8.5

Conductivity mS/cm 325 - 6 300 –

1140 0 800

Hardness mg/l 15 - 55 4 200 - 700

5
(Ca & Mg)

Sodium mg/l 29 – 230 7 70 - 300

Grey Water Treatment Methodologies

Introduction
Grey water treatment methodologies range from simple low-cost devices that

divert grey water to direct reuse, such as in toilets or outdoor landscaping, to

complex treatment processes incorporating sedimentation tanks, bioreactors,

filters, pumps, and disinfection. Some grey water plants are home-built, do-it-

yourself style through piping and storage systems. On the other hand, there are

also a variety of commercial grey water systems available that filter water to

remove hair, lint, and debris, and remove pollutants, bacteria, salts,

pharmaceuticals, and even viruses from grey water. In short, the avilable

treatment technologies in both scientific literatures and market could are shown

in Table 3 according to the treatment level.

Table 3: Grey water treatment technologies

systems Level of treatment Application

Direct reuse No treatment Garden

irrigation

Very basic treatment

technique such as Garden

skimming debris off the irrigation
surface and allowing

particles to settle to the

bottom
 Short retention of the tank.

Filter, chemical
Garden
disinfectants, and
irrigation, Toilet
Basic physical, aeration process are
flushing
chemical and used in such

biological systems

Grey water Treatment methods

The different studies carried out concerning the grey water showed that all types

of grey water have good biodegradability. Therefore, the treatment methods

applied for grey

water reuse included physical, chemical, and biological systems. Most of these

methods are preceded by a solid-liquid separation step as pre-treatment and

followed by a disinfection step as post treatment. To avoid the clogging of the

subsequent treatment, the pre-treatments such as septic tank, filter bags, screen

and filters are applied to reduce the amount of particles and oil & grease. The

disinfection step is used to meet the microbiological requirements. In the

following based on scientific research, we are going to give a brief description

for the three different treatment routes.

Physical treatment

The physical treatments include coarse sand, soil, and membrane filtration

followed mostly by a disinfection step. The coarse filter alone has limited effect
on the removal of the pollutants present in the grey water.

Chiemchaisri et al. (1992) used membrane filtration for grey water treatment.

Membrane Bio-Reactor (MBR) installed with two types of membranes (pore

size 0.1 and

0.03 μm) was able to achieve the same as biological treatment although the

membrane pore sizes are larger than the size of viruses (25 nm), revealing

effective removal of mico-organisms by membranes. Nevertheless, the relative

higher residual organic substances in the treated grey water by membrane

filtration often promote the re-growth of the micro-organisms in the storage and

transportation system. Furthermore, the membrane fouling and its

consequences in term of operating and maintenance costs can restrict the

widespread application of membrane technologies for grey water treatment.

Data on the removal of detergents by physical grey water treatment processes

were not available.

Birks (1998) reported a medium strength UF membrane grey water treatment

system, in which the COD and the BOD were reduced from 451 mg/l and 274

mg/l in the influent to 117 mg/l and 53 mg/l respectively in the effluent

March et al. (2004) reported a low strength bath grey water treatment system,

which used a nylon sock type filter, followed by a sedimentation step and a

disinfection step. The COD, the turbidity, the SS and TN were reduced from 171

mg/l, 20 NTU, 44 mg/l and 11.4 mg/l in the influent to 78 mg/l, 16.5 NTU, 18.6
mg/l and 7.1 mg/l respectively in the effluent. He claimed that the reclaimed

grey water can be used for toilet flushing under controlled working conditions

(storage time be 48 h and the residual chlorine concentration N1 mg/l in the

toilet tank).

Itayama et al. (2004), used a slanted soil filter (The main components of the

soil are alumina and hydrated silica) to remove organic pollutants and total

phosphors partially from kitchen sink grey water. The COD, the BOD, the SS,

the TN and the TP were reduced from 271 mg/l, 477 mg/l, 105 mg/l, 20.7 mg/l

and 3.8 mg/l in the influent to 40.6 mg/l, 81 mg/l, 23 mg/l, 4.4 mg/l and 0.6

mg/l, respectively, in the effluent. Due to the nitrification and de-nitrification

reactions in the soil treatment system, nitrogen was eliminated effectively.

Obviously, the soil filter applied in this study cannot be regarded as a single

filtration but a combination of filtration and biodegradation.

Ramon et al. (2004) reported a low strength grey water treatment system with

direct nano-filtration membrane, which was able to achieve an organic removal

rate of 93%.

Turk et al. (2005) investigated the use of a UF membrane (0.05 μm pore size)

for the treatment of laundry grey water.

Sostar-Turk et al. (2005) reported that the membrane after the UF membrane

was able to reduce the BOD from 86 to 2 mg/l corresponding to a removal rate

of 98% However, one shall keep in mind that the higher energy consumption

and the membrane fouling are often the key factors limiting the economic
viability of membrane systems.

Funamizu and Kikyo (2007) reported a high strength grey water treatment

system by different nano-filtration membranes. 92–98% anionic surfactant

(LAS) and 88–92% of nonionic surfactant were rejected by the nano-filtration

membranes. The LAS concentrations in the permeate were still higher than the

predicted no-effect concentration and further treatments are required. There

were few data available on the removal of micro-organisms by membranes.

Li et al. (2008) evaluated the performance and suitability of a resource and

nutrient oriented decentralized grey water treatment system which uses a

submerged spiral wound module. The study revealed that the direct UF

membrane filtration system was able to reduce TOC from the influent value of

161 mg/l to 28.6 mg/l in the permeate, corresponding an average elimination

rate of 83.4%. In addition, soluble nutrients like ammonia and phosphors can

pass through the UF membrane and remain in the permeate. The total nitrogen

and total phosphors in the permeate were 16.7 mg/l and mg/l respectively.

The permeate was low in turbidity (below 1 NTU) and free of suspended

solids and E. coli and had an excellent physical appearance. The rejects

generated in this system can be treated with black water and kitchen waste in an

anaerobic digester at a later stage for producing biogas or compost.

Based on the above review it could be concluded that physical processes alone

are not sufficient for grey water treatments and reuses.

Chemical treatments

Very few chemical processes were reported for grey water treatments and

reuses. The chemical processes applied for grey water treatments include

coagulation, photo- catalytic oxidation, ion exchange and granular activated

carbon.

(Parsons et al., 2000). reported that an advanced oxidation process based on

photo- catalytic oxidation with titanium dioxide and UV was applied for grey

water treatment and a 90% removal of the organics.

Lin et al. (2005) reported a combined chemical grey water treatment system, in

which electrocoagulation was followed by a disinfection step. The COD, the

BOD, the turbidity and the SS in the lows strength grey water were reduced

from 55 mg/l, 23 mg/l, 43 NTU and 29 mg/l in the influent to 22 mg/l, 9 mg/l, 4

NTU and 9 mg/l respectively in the effluent. The total coli forms were not

detected in the reclaimed grey water. The effluent water quality meets the

restricted grey water reuse standards proposed in this study. But the raw grey

water fed into the treatment plant was low in organic strength.

Sostar-Turk et al. (2005) reported the treatment of low strength laundry grey
water treatment process using a combination of coagulation, sand filter and

granular activated carbon (GAC). This grey water treatment process reduced the

COD, the BOD and the suspended solids from 280 mg/l, 195 mg/l and 35 mg/l

in the influent to 20 mg/l, 10 mg/l and less than 5 mg/l respectively in the

effluent and achieved a good treatment performance with the coagulation stage

itself achieving 51% of the BOD removal and 100% of the suspended solids

removal.

Chang et al. (2007) investigated the flocculation process for grey water

treatment (coagulation with aluminum salt). The COD and the anionic surfactant

concentration were reduced by 70% and 90% respectively. The study showed

that the flocculation process alone is not able to reduce the organic substances to

the required reuse standard, thus necessitating the application of biological

4
processes. In a study lead by Pidou et al. (2008), the coagulation processes and

the magnetic ion exchange resin process were applied for shower grey water

treatment. At optimal conditions, coagulation with aluminum salt reduced the

3−
COD, the BOD, the turbidity, TN and PO in from 791 mg/l, 205 mg/l, 46.6

NTU, 18 mg/l and 1.66 mg/l in the influent to 287 mg/l, 23 mg/l, 4.28 NTU,

15.7 mg/l and 0.09 mg/l respectively. The total coli forms, the E. coli and the

faucal enterococci in the reclaimed grey water are all less than 1/100 ml.

Coagulation with ferric salt achieved similar treatment efficiencies as that

obtained with aluminum salt. The coagulation processes. In another study by the

same research group, (Pidou et al ,2008) they were able to reduce the BOD
concentration to less than 30 mg/l but fail to decrease the turbidity to less than

5 NTU. The COD, BOD, turbidity,

Biological treatments

Several biological processes, including rotating biological contactor (RBC)

(Nolde, 1999; Friedler et al., 2005; Eriksson et al., 2007), sequencing batch

reactor (SBR) (Shin et al., 1998; Hernandez et al., 2008), anaerobic sludge

blanket (UASB) (Elmitwalli and Otterpohl, 2007; Hernandez et al., 2008),

constructed wetland (CW) (Li et al., 2003; Gross et al., 2007) and membrane

bioreactors (MBR) (Lesjean and Gnirss, 2006; Liu et al., 2005; Merz et al.,

2007), have been applied for grey water treatment. The biological processes

were often preceded by a physical pre-treatment step such as sedimentation,

usage of septic tanks (Nolde, 1999; Li et al., 2003) or screening.

Nolde (1999) studied a RBC grey water treatment system. The process

comprises a sedimentation tank followed by a four-stage RBC and a final UV

disinfection stage. The BOD7 was reduced from the inffluent value of 50–250

mg/l to below 5 mg/l by the biological step. After the UV disinfection step,

bacteriological effluent quality mostly meets water reuse standards. Similarly,

Eriksson et al. (2007) reported a pilot RBC low strength pilot grey water
treatment plant. The grey water plant treats effluents from showers and hand

basins from bathrooms in 84 apartments and the treated water is utilized for

toilet flushing. The plant consists of a primary settling tank which is also used

for equalising the flow, biological treatment with 3 rotating biological contactors

(RBC) in series, followed by secondary settling, a sand filter and UV treatment.

The treated water is kept in two storage tanks. The pilot grey water treatment

plant was able to reduced the COD, the BOD, the TOC, the NH4–N and the

ortho-phosphate from 142 mg/l, 93 mg/l, 72 mg/l 5.2 mg/l and 0.66 mg/l in

the influent to 25 mg/l, 6 mg/l, 13 mg/l, 0.031

mg/l and 0.26 mg/l in the final effluent respectively. Surprisingly the COD, the

BOD and the TOC were increased from 20 mg/l, 1.6 mg/l and 0.5 mg/l in the

effluent of the sand filter to 25 mg/l, 6 mg/l and 13 mg/l in the final effluent

respectively. However, the study from Eriksson et al. (2007) also showed that

the BOD can be reduced by the RBC step to below 5 mg/l. He also examined the

removal efficiencies of 5 selected trace organic substances by the pilot grey

water treatment plant. Their study showed that the five selected paraben biocides

(methyl-, ethyl-, propyl-, butyl-, and iso-butyl-esters of parahydroxy benzoic

acid) can be removed effectively by the treatment plant showing that the micro-

organisms has adapted to the parabens as a carbon source for their growth.

Friedler et al. (2005) studied a low strength grey water treatment system, which

combined Rotating Biological Contactors (RBC), sand filtration and

chlorination. The RBC step was preceded by a fine screen for the removal of
gross solids and hairs larger than 1 mm and followed by a sedimentation step in

a sedimentation basin to separate sludge from the effluents. The TSS, Turbidity,

COD, BOD and faecal coliform were reduced from 43 mg/l, 33 NTU, 158 mg/l,

59 mg/l and 5.6×105 /100 ml in the influent to 16 mg/l, 1.9 NTU, 46 mg/l, 6.6

mg/l and 9.7×103 /100 ml respectively in the effluent of the sedimentation

basin. The sand filtration step, acting as a polishing stage, further reduced the

TSS, turbidity, COD and BOD to 7.9 mg/l, 0.61 NTU, 40 mg/l and 2.3 mg/l

respectively. Astonishingly, the faecal coliform level increased from 9.7×103 /

100 ml to 5.2×104\ /100 ml after the sand filtration, demanding a disinfection

step thereafter. The faecal coliform level was reduced to 0.1/100ml by the

disinfection step in the final effluent. The pilot plant successfully reduced the

TP, TKN, ammonia and organic nitrogen from 4.8 mg/l, 8.1 mg/l, 4.9 mg/l and

3.2 mg/l in the inffluent to 2 mg/l, 1 mg/l, 0.16 mg/l and 0.97 mg/l respectively

in the final effluent.

Liu et al. (2005) reported a submerged MBR from Mitsubishi Rayon (poly-

ethylene, pore size 0.4 µm) for low strength bath grey water treatment. This

study revealed that the COD was reduced from the influent value of 130–322 to

18 mg/l on average in permeate. NH4–N concentration was reported to have

decreased from 0.6–1.0 mg/l in influent to less than 0.5 mg/l in the effluent.

BOD5 was reduced from the influent value of 99–221 mg/l to less than 5 mg/l

in the permeate. Anionic surfactants (AS) were reduced from 3.5–8.9 mg/l in the
influent to less than 0.5mg/l in the effluent. The effluent was colorless and

odorless and free of SS and faecal coliform concentrations were below the

determination threshold. This study demonstrated that biological degradation

removed most of the pollutants and membrane separation further eliminated the

rest of the pollutants, thus ensuring a stable and excellent effluent water quality.

Lesjean and Gnirss (2006), studied a submerged plate and frame MBR grey

water (including kitchen grey water) treatment unit was operated under low SRT

(down to 4 d) and low HRT (set as 2 h) condition. The COD was reduced

from the influent value of

493 mg/l to 24 mg/l in permeate and the elimination rate was greater than 85%.

Nitrogen was decreased from 21 mg/l to 10 mg/l, but its elimination rate was not

consistent (ranging from 20 to 80%). Phosphors was reduced by around 50%,

decreasing fromthe influent value of 7.4 mg/l to 3.5mg/l in effluent. SS in

permeate was reported to be less than 1 mg/l during the whole observation

period. The stable permeate flux achieved in this study was 7 l/m2.h.

Merz et al. (2007) studied a submerged MBR from Zeno (membrane pore size,

01 µm) for low strength grey water from a sports and leisure club. The turbidity,

COD, BOD5, TKN, ammonia, TP, LAS and faecal coliforms were reduced from

29 NTU, 109 mg/l, 59 mg/l, 15.2 mg/l, 11.8 mg/l, 1.6 mg/l, 299 µg/l and

1.4×105/100 ml in the influent to 0.5mg/l, 15 mg/l, 5 mg/l, 5.7 mg/l, 3.3 mg/l,

1.3 mg/l, 10 µg/l and 68 /100 ml respectively in the effluent. The effluent was

free of colour and odourless. The detection of the faecal coliforms in the
permeate was probably caused by the accidental contamination in the

distribution system. The sTablepermeate flux obtained in this study ranged from

8 to 10 l/m2h

Gross et al. (2007), studied a recycled vertical flow constructed wetland was

applied for a high strength mixed grey water treatment. The TSS, BOD5, COD,

TN, TP, anionic surfactants, boron and faecal coliform were reduced from 158

mg/l, 466 mg/l, 839 mg/l,

34.3 mg/l, 22.8 mg/l, 7.9 mg/l, 1.6 mg/l and 5×107 /100ml in the influent to

3mg/l, 0.7mg/l, 157mg/l, 10.8mg/l, 6.6 mg/l, 0.6 mg/l, 0.6 mg/l and 2×105 /100

ml respectively in the effluent. The constructed wetland reported in the literature

showed good treatment performance to treat grey water.

Hernandez et al., (2008) used a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) for a high

strength grey water treatment. The sludge retention time and hydraulic retention

time were set as 15 days and 11.7 h respectively. The COD, TP, TN and

ammonia was reduced from 830 mg/l, 7.7 mg/l, 53.6 mg/l and 1.2 mg/l in the

inffluent tom91 mg/l, 6.5 mg/l, 34.4 mg/l and 0.41 mg/l respectively in the

effluent. Another sequencing batch reactor (SBR) was operated for a high

strength grey water treatment. During this period, the sludge retention time was

increased to 378 days and the hydraulic retention time was reduced to 5.9 hours.

The COD, TP, TN and ammonia was reduced from 827 mg/l, 8.5 mg/l, 29.9

mg/l and 0.8mg/l in the influent to 100mg/l, 5.8mg/l, 26.5mg/l and 0.44mg/l

respectively in the effluent. The organic nitrogen in the effluents accounts for
 90% and 74% of the TN, indicating that the transformation of particulate

organic nitrogen to ammonia during the aerobic treatment was very limited. This

study also revealed that 97% of anionic surfactants were eliminated by the

aerobic degradation.

To get a clear and quick review for the different treatment methodologies, the

following Table provides a summary for the different grey water treatment

methodologies and some of their respective advantages and disadvantages.

Treatment
Description Advantages Disadvantages
Technique

High capital cost, reduces

Beds of sand or in some cases
Simple operation, low pathogens but does not
coarse bark or mulch which trap
maintenance, low operation eliminate them, subject to
and adsorb contaminants as grey
costs. clogging and flooding if
Sand filter water flows through.
overloaded.

Highly effective if designed

and operated properly, high

Uses aerobic biological treatment
degree of operations
and filtration together to High capital cost, high
flexibility to accommodate
encourage consumption of operating cost, complex
grey water of varying
Membrane organic contaminants and operational requirements.
qualities and quantities,
bioreactor filtration of all pathogens.
allows treated water to be

stored indefinitely.

High capital cost, many other

Activated carbon has been chemicals are not attracted to

Simple operation, activated
treated with oxygen to open up carbon at all ‐‐ sodium, nitrates,
carbon is particularly good
millions of tiny pores between
Activated at trapping organic etc. This means that an
the carbon atoms. These filters
carbon filter chemicals, as well as
thus are widely used to adsorb activated carbon filter will only
 inorganic compounds like remove certain impurities. It
odorous or colored substances
chlorine.
from gases or liquids. also means that, once all of the

bonding sites are filled, an

activated carbon

filter stops working.

Chlorine and ozone can create

Chlorine, ozone, or Highly effective in killing
toxic byproducts, ozone and
Disinfection Ultraviolet light can all be used bacteria if properly designed
to disinfect grey water. and operated, low operator ultraviolet can be adversely
skill requirement.
affected by variations in

organic content of grey water.

Air is bubbled to transfer oxygen

High degree of operations
from the air into the grey water.
flexibility to accommodate High capital cost, high
Aerobic Bacteria present consume the
grey water of varying operating cost, complex
biological dissolved oxygen and digest the
qualities and quantities,
treatment organic contaminants, reducing the operational requirements,
allows treated water to be
concentration of contaminants.
stored indefinitely. does not remove all

pathogens.

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

Analysis of coconut fruits revealed that the coconut fruit contains outer,

middle and inner layers [3, 19]. The outer layer contains coir which occupies

54.38±0.7 % of the coconut fruit. The middle layer is the coconut shell. This

layer occupies 15.18±2.4 % while the inner layer contains both edible flesh and

drinkable liquid. The flesh and liquid account for 22.31±2.4 % and 8.11±2.6 %

respectively, equivalent to 30.42±5 % of the whole

 Color and texture

 Raw coconut shells are usually brown or dark brown, with a rough and fibrous

outer surface and a smoother and harder inner surface.

 Durability

Coconut shells are durable, tough, and abrasion resistant, making them

suitable for long-term use.

 Density

Coconut shells have an approximate density of 1.60 g/cm 3 and vary in

thickness from 2–8 mm.

Coconut shells contain cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and moisture, which are

potential sources of carbon. The chemical composition of coconut shells is

approximately:

 Pentose: 27.7%

 Cellulose: 26.6%

 Lignin: 29.4%

 Water: 8%

 Extraction solvent: 4.2%

 Uronate anhydrous: 3.5%

 Ash: 0.6%
 Hemicellulose: 31%

 Moisture: 7.073%

Materials used:

1. Coarse aggregate

2. fine aggregate

3. sand

4. soil

5. coconut shells

Coarse Aggregate: Coarse aggregate is often used as filtration medium to

terminate the solids comes with wastewater and reduces the turbidity of water

(Gnanaraj et al., 2019). In this project the two sizes of aggregate like, 6-8 mm

and 12-16mm which is washed several times to remove all the dirt’s from the

surface of aggregates.

Fine Aggregate: Fine aggregates were works as physical strainer and biological

renovator to help the pathogens to die. It also helps to decrease the COD of

wastewater. The size of 0.5-1.0mm sand was sieved and washed 2 to 3 times to

remove small particles and dried of (Gnanaraj et al., 2019).

Activated Carbon: Activated carbon has been used to clean water as a water

filtration media. Activated carbon's primary function is to absorb colour and

odour. Due to its great adsorption capability, granular activated carbon was

extensively utilised to remove pollutants from water.

Conduct Test:

1. pH : The digital pH meter was used to calculate the pH value for waste water

sample and after it was used to calculate the pH value of treated water.

2. Turbidity : The turbidity test was used to test the turbidity value in the waste

water sample and after wards it was used to check the value of turbidity of the

treated water.

3. Colorimeter (TSS) : The colorimeter was used to determine the total

suspended solids {TSS} in the waste water sample. And after it was used for the

treated water.

Preparation of Activated Charcoal by using coconut shell: Activated charcoal,

(also called activated carbon) is a form of carbon having small pores that helps

in increasing the surface area available for adsorption. All the activated carbon

with more micropores show high specific surface area as well as total pore

volume which depends upon the activation time prolonging; the highest ones

were around 3100 m2 /g and 1.5 mL/g, respectively. Coconut is a member of

the palm tree family known for its versatility of uses. The shell of coconut

contains cellulose, lignin, charcoal, tar, tannin etc. Coconut shell is first

collected and then cut into small pieces, followed by washing with simple tap
water for removal of dust adhering to it. It was followed by drying in sunlight

and grinding into a powdered form called coconut husk. This powdered form is

then heated in the oven at 110oC temperature. Dried materials were kept in the

muffle furnace at 150°C for removal of other volatile impurities. This leads to

the formation of fixed carbon (charcoal). For the first batch, whole fixed carbon

is treated at 300oC in a muffle furnace for formation of ash for proximate

analysis. The sample was carbonized using a 25% concentrate solution of CaCl2

(Gawande and Kaware, 2017). The soaked sample was transferred into a tray

and washed repeatedly with distilled water to remove traces of chemical. The

washed sample was transferred into an oven at 110 ˚C, cooled and led to

formation of chemically activated charcoal and stored for use

Treatment of Greywater:

Greywater can be called as washwaterie, water from bath, dish, laundry except

toilet waste and free of garbage residue. A household grey water flow is around

65% of total waste water flow. If properly used grey water can become a

valuable resource for horticultural and agricultural practices. Water in bathing

and hand washing produce 50-60% whereas, cloth washing produces 25-35%

and kitchen washing produces 10% of total grey water. As greywater flow and

composition varies daily, weekly and monthly depending upon the various
factors. To understand the area of application, physicochemical tests like BOD,

COD (as per ASTM D1252), turbidity etc.

BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD)

1. Prepare BOD dilutions. 5 mL sample in 300 mL BOD bottle, fill up with

dilution water;15 mL sample in 300 mL BOD bottle, fill up with dilution

water;20 mL sample in 300 mL BOD bottle, fill up with dilution water.

2. Take 300 mL sample in BOD bottle. Prepare two sets of this sample. Keep

one set for DO analysis for day 0 (i.e., Sample0Day) and another sample in

BOD incubator for 5 days at 20°C (Sample5Day).

3. Measure DO in different samples at t=0.

4. Incubate samples in 20oC for 5 days.

5. Come back in the lab after 5 days and record dissolved oxygen.

CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)

Procedure:

1. Take 10 ml of sample into a round bottom reflex flask.

2. Add some glass beads to prevent the solution from bumping into the flask

while heating.

3. Add 1 ml of Mercury sulfate (HgSO4) solution to the flask and mix by

swirling the flask.

4. Add 5 ml of Potassium dichromate (K2Cr2O7) solution.

5. Now add slowly and carefully 15 ml Silver sulfate- Sulfuric acid solution.

6. Connect the reflex condenser and digest the content using a hot plate for 2

hours. 7. After digestion cools the flask and rinses the condenser with 25 ml of

distilled water collecting in the same flask.

8. Add 2-4 drops of ferroin indicator to the flask and titrate with ferrous

ammonium sulfate solution to the endpoint.

9. Make the blank preparation in the same manner as sample using distilled

water instead of the sample.

Grey Water Grey Water

Physicochemical Percent
Before After
Parameters Reduction
Treatment Treatment

BOD (mg/L) 148 36.5 75.3

COD (mg/L) 380 160.6 57.7

Ph 7.45 7.2 3.4

Turbidity (NTU) 190 67.10 64.68

Chloride Content
1200 537.4 55.2
(mg/L)

Total Hardness
120 115 4.2
(mg/L)
 Total Solids (mg/L) 780 490 37.2

CONCLUSION
After the whole process i.e. after collecting the treated water from
the grey water filter and testing its results from the various test taken it
is concluded that the results taken before filtering and after filtering has
differences and actually have more approximate value for the potable
water. The water collected can be used further for many outdoor
purposes and also can be very much beneficial to the other surrounding
and the environment. It is also economical and easy to use the process
and eco-friendly in nature.