The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2398-4708.htm

Design and modeling of an on-site An on-site

greywater
greywater treatment system for treatment
system
a hotel building
Sultan Kobeyev 201
School of Engineering and Digital Sciences, Nazarbayev University,
Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan Received 14 August 2021
Revised 17 October 2021
Serik Tokbolat 15 December 2021
Accepted 12 January 2022
School of Architecture, Design and the Built Environment,
Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK, and
Farnush Nazipov and Alfrendo Satyanaga
School of Engineering and Digital Sciences, Nazarbayev University,
Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan

Abstract
Purpose – As the United States is making a significant move toward rejoining the Paris Agreement on climate
change, there is a high demand for sustainable solutions across various industries, including construction and
hospitality sectors. The aim of this project was to design and model an on-site greywater treatment system for a
hotel building for the effective reuse of sewage water. The study considered Los Angeles, California, as a case
study location and referred to respective climate conditions and construction standards.
Design/methodology/approach – This study considered various options of greywater treatment plants
such as membrane bioreactor (MBR), sequencing batch reactor and reverse osmosis with upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket which were carefully reviewed and modeled using the GPS-X software. The design and
modeling results were verified by hand calculations and were followed by the estimation of capital and
operational expenses required for the implementation of the plants.
Findings – Having relatively low capital and operational expenditure requirements as well as superior
technical performance, the MBR plant proved to be the most effective solution for the considered location and
standards and was recommended for use in hotel buildings.
Practical implications – Designing and modeling several greywater treatment plants allowed selecting the
most optimal option which in the long run will help to preserve the eco-system, stay compliant with the
government laws and regulations and be financially sustainable.
Originality/value – The outcomes of the present study provide a detailed procedure for designing and
modeling a greywater treatment plant for a hotel building that can be used for the localities with a similar
climate. The most effective option selected as a result of cost-benefit analysis provides an efficient and viable
solution for the relevant industry and the type of buildings.
Keywords Greywater treatment, Sewage, Hotel, Sustainability
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Globally, tourism is regarded as a crucial sector of the economy and in some cases, even
considered as a primary source of income. According to the United Nations World Tourism
Organization (2021), as of 2020, the United States has been a leading country in terms of
income from international tourism and the Los Angeles area made a significant contribution
as one of the most attractive tourist destinations. While there is no doubt in the economic
impact of the tourism and the hospitality industry, their detrimental effects on the
International Journal of Building
environment tend to be underestimated by the tourists and the public. However, there are Pathology and Adaptation
various environmental policies and norms at governmental and organizational levels which Vol. 41 No. 1, 2023
pp. 201-224
have to be followed by the industry if it is to remain a substantial economic activity (Styles © Emerald Publishing Limited
2398-4708
et al., 2013). Ecorys (2009), for example, highlights that considering the reliance of the tourism DOI 10.1108/IJBPA-08-2021-0109
IJBPA industry on natural resources, further development of the businesses in an eco-friendly and
41,1 sustainable manner is essential to ensure competitiveness. Similar principles are widely
reflected in various governmental policies, such as the “Agenda for a sustainable and
competitive European tourism” in the case of the European Union. Styles et al. (2013)
emphasize the role of the following areas which directly or indirectly spawn various
environmental pressures on the sector: energy use; water use; land use and landscaping;
guest behavior; material use; various emissions into the air; discharge of effluents; detriment
202 to natural biodiversity of the ecosystem; odor and noise pollution; waste disposal. These
aspects tend to create various environmental issues both at local and global levels. While the
importance of addressing each of these cannot be neglected, for the proposed hotel project
(Hotel) only a design of a wastewater reuse system is considered, specifically looking at,
“water use” and “discharge of effluents” aspects.
Such a specific focus of the study is formed based on the fact that Los Angeles area
constantly faces water shortage issues during summer months and due to the lack of adequate
irrigation and sewage systems. Similar to many cities around the world, the city of Los Angeles,
particularly, and the California state, in general, face significant water scarcity problems during
dry seasons (or years) (Edry, 2021). Partially, this is the result of advancing climate change
causing California state to observe higher autumn and winter temperatures with less
precipitation (USC Viterbi, 2021). Over the last several years, the amount of precipitation in the
state has been 5% below the normal levels. Even with normal precipitation levels, there is often
no adequate way to capture rainwater and infrastructure to reuse it. Historically, the Los
Angeles River was well used as the main source of drinkable water until 1940; however, due to
concerns around flooding, the river was reengineered to serve as a drainage pathway for excess
waters. This resulted in losing the major source of potable water in the area (USC Viterbi, 2021).
At the present, the city has three main sources of water, each representing about one-third of the
water supply: Colorado and Northern California River, the Owens River and groundwaters.
Considering that, more than 85% of water in Los Angeles is imported from remote locations, the
city’s water supply action plan, which recommends using new technologies for recycling and
reuse of water, is critical (Edry, 2021).
Besides addressing the issues of water shortage and lack of adequate irrigation and
sewage systems, implementing a wastewater reuse system in hotels has a few other benefits

• The sewage water of the Los Angeles city is dumped into the ocean and
some por on of water sips into the ground while being stored inside sep c
Preserva on of tanks. Therefore, trea ng wastewater before releasing it into the ocean
the ecosystem would reduce the concentra on of various hazardous chemicals
(suspended solids, organic materials, BOD, COD, various oils and grease,
etc.) and thereby help preserve the environment.

Staying • There are certain governmental rules on the effluent content of various
compliant with commercial and residen al buildings with which hotels have to abide. Non-
the governing compliance with these regula ons lead to imposing of fines and other
laws and financial and legal ramifica ons for businesses that hinder their further
opera on.
regula ons

• Installing wastewater recycling systems may seem cumbersome and not

Figure 1. cost-effec ve at first. However, reduced water consump on will provide a
Benefits of Financially
net posi ve cash flow and thus be financially beneficial in the long term.
implementing a beneficial in the • Moreover, new hotels have an advantage of design flexibility, which
wastewater reuse long term allows them to install all the per nent pipes and networks beforehand
system in hotels without requiring addi onal expensive retrofits.
as shown in Figure 1 (Styles et al., 2013). Considering the abovementioned challenges related An on-site
to greywater treatment, this study aimed to design and model an on-site greywater treatment greywater
plant for a hotel building for the effective reuse of sewage water. The study considered Los
Angeles, California, as a case study location and referred to respective climate conditions and
treatment
construction standards. system

2. Literature review 203

Nowadays, the hospitality industry and hotels, in particular, are facing increasing demands
from tourists and customers for more sustainable practices and integration of environmental-
friendly technologies. This is especially evident from the direct dependence of
competitiveness of hotels and the number of their customers from the extent to which they
operate in an eco-friendly manner, use renewable sources of energy and properly treat their
natural surroundings (Hathroubi et al., 2014; Bohdanowicz, 2006; Kularatne et al., 2019; Han
and Yoon, 2015). There is certainly a tradeoff between the eco-friendliness of hotels and their
cost efficiency, and the use of green technologies does indeed require greater investments.
However, as it is stated by some researchers, in the long run, the use of green technologies
reduces operational and maintenance costs and also improves their profitability by attracting
more environmentally conscious customers (Kularatne et al., 2019). Although in situ
greywater treatment systems have been gaining increased attention only recently, the
installation of cheap and simple plants in urban areas is a long-established practice. For
instance, Atanasova et al. (2017) report that greywater treatment systems were widely
implemented in Europe, especially in Germany, but were abandoned due to their
unsatisfactory efficiency, discomfort and odor. Among different building types, hotels are
particularly suitable for greywater treatment plants, because they tend to have increased
water consumption rates, and not infrequently, they are located in water-scarce, semi-arid
regions.
There have been numerous studies in the past which evaluated the efficiency of various
greywater treatment technologies in hotels. Li et al. (2009) reviewed various physical, chemical
and biological greywater treatment technologies critically assessed the advantages and
disadvantages of each and concluded that for urban residential buildings, membrane bioreactors
(MBR) may be the most suitable solution. Kasim and Okumus (2014) developed a water
management framework for hotels based on four principles: reducing, reusing, reaching and
recycling. Hocaoglu (2017) analyzed long-term data from two hotels in Turkey and developed a
decision tree for choosing the most optimum on-site wastewater reuse plant. Depending on
whether the hotel is to be operated the whole year, the number of rooms and the availability of
large, irrigated landscape areas, the hotel may need to opt for greywater or mixed domestic
wastewater reuse system. Atanasova et al. (2017) analyzed the performance of MBR and
assessed their economic feasibility by running a pilot hotel in Spain for six months. They found
that MBR yields excellent effluent quality and can pay back in about three years if it will be
treating 30 m3 of water per day. The literature review shows that until present, no extensive
comparative study has been conducted to evaluate the technical and economic performance of
various technologies for hotel buildings. Therefore, this study aims to address this gap by
conducting a simulation-based performance assessment of three greywater treatment
technologies, namely MBR, sequencing batch reactor (SBR) and reverse osmosis with upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket (RO with UASB). In addition, we will evaluate how economically
feasible are each of these technologies in a high-rise hotel building in the Los Angeles area.

2.1 Effluent greywater characteristics

According to Thomas (2020), hotels consume on average about 503.38 L per occupied room
daily. If the annual occupancy rate of 400 rooms in the Hotel is approximately 80%, i.e. the
IJBPA same as the average occupancy rate of Los Angeles hotels, and that the share of greywater is
41,1 nearly 65%, the daily amount of greywater produced by the Hotel can be calculated as
follows:
Daily volume of grey water ¼ daily water use per occupied room 3 number of rooms
3 average occupancy rate in LA
3 average portion of grey water
204 ¼ 503:38 L=day=occupied


room 3 400 rooms 3 0:80 3 0:65
¼ 104:4 m3 day ≈ 110 m3 day

Since data on typical greywater content of hotels does not exist in open sources, the average
hotel greywater content was used for the design of the Hotel has been compiled from multiple
sources (Atanasova et al., 2017; Jefferson et al., 2004; Li et al., 2009) and the end result is
summarized in Table 1.
For the design of greywater treatment systems, either average or maximum values were
used specifically to create the most adverse operating conditions for the greywater system.
The concentration of other chemicals that needed to be specified within the software were set
to remain as default values for common wastewaters.

2.2 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for reclaimed water

Various standards exist for controlling the amount of different chemicals in effluent and
reclaimed waters. Li et al. (2009), for example, reviewed the wastewater reuse standards for
Germany, China, USA, Japan and Australia. Yoonus and Al-Ghamdi (2020), on the other hand,
presented the corresponding wastewater reuse standards for Jordan, Tunisia, Bangladesh,
Qatar, USA and Japan. These standards are quite similar and restrictions that they impose
are based on the purpose of reuse. Mostly, these standards set limits on such parameters as
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), Chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids
(TSS), pH, NO3, total nitrogen (TN), turbidity, fecal coliforms, etc. For the Hotel design, the
reclaimed water quality standards set forth by the US Environmental Protection Agency
(2012) were used. Namely, the standard for agricultural irrigation and urban reuse of
greywater was adopted. The treatment goals required by this standard are provided in a
tabulated form in Table 2 below.

High season Max

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) [mg/L] 145.1 ± 88.4 535.1

20-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD20) [mg/L] 161.9 ± 105.5 360
5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) [mg/L] 145.4 ± 70.3 295
Total organic carbon (TOC) [mg/L] 42.2 ± 26.5 160.4
Alkalinity [mg/L (CaCO3)]] 168.6 ± 15.8 227.4
Conductivity, ms/cm 767.4 ± 35.8 971.3
pH 6.9 ± 0.6 7.0
Total suspended solids (TSS) [mg/L] 43.4 ± 32.5 195.4
Volatile suspended solids (VSS) [mg/L] 38.5 ± 10.9 149.8
Total nitrogen (TN) [mg/L] 9.2 ± 4.7 25.5
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) [mg/L] 9.2 ± 4.1 25.1
N-NH4þ [mg/L] 5.9 ± 3.2 14.4
Table 1. P-PO43 [mg/L] 0.79.2 ± 4.71.4 6.7
The average water Total pathogen count [CFU/100 mL] 1.5 3 107 4.1 3 107
content of greywater in Total coliform count [CFU/100 mL] 1.4 3 106 4.1 3 106
hotels E. coli [CFU/100 mL] 0 1.1 3 106
Since reclaimed greywater from the Hotel was used for both restricted and unrestricted uses, An on-site
the standard for the latter was used since it sets more stringent requirements and demands greywater
the greywater to be treated until higher levels of purity.
The following section provides a brief description of the methodology used to design and
treatment
model the proposed greywater treatment plants. First, the study reviewed the available system
greywater treatment technologies and shortlisted the most relevant ones for the study. The
key parameter for shortlisting the technologies for further design in the GPS-X software was
the technical performance, for example, the capacity of a technology to reduce the amount of 205
chemicals to the levels required by the standards. The study assumed that the chemical
treatment technologies should not be considered as they are only effective against low-
strength greywaters. Further, the GPS-X software was used to design, model and optimize
the wastewater treatment plants. The design process consisted of building a layout of each
shortlisted greywater treatment plant, identification of the most significant and sensitive
design parameters by optimization of these parameters to achieve satisfactory effluent
quality at a minimum cost and space. Finally, hand calculations were used to verify the
validity of software modeling results. Capital and operational costs calculations were made to
compare the plants in the final cost-benefit analysis. The limitations of the methods used
could be linked to the fact that the study uses only the shortlisted plant types. Another
limitation could be related to the inaccuracies generated by the GPS-X software.

3. Designing of a greywater treatment system

3.1 Review of available greywater treatment technologies and reasoning for shortlisting
Similar to potable water treatment, there are generally three main classifications of greywater
treatment technologies — biological, chemical and physical treatment technologies (Yoonus
and Al-Ghamdi, 2020). In all these cases, the treatment must be preceded by a pre-treatment
step which separates solids from the liquid and must be followed by a post-treatment step
which disinfects the water before releasing from the plant.

Treatment
Category requirement Applications after the treatment

Unrestricted BOD5: max. 10 mg/l Toilet flushing, landscape irrigation, laundry, fire extinguishing,
reuses Faecal coliforms: max. irrigation of crops, fruits and vegetables, street washing
10/ml
Turbidity: max. 2 NTU
pH: 6–9
Residual chlorine:
max. 1 mg/l
Total coliforms: max.
100/ml
Restricted BOD5: max. 30 mg/l Limited irrigation of landscape, subsurface irrigation of non-
reuses Detergent (anionic): edible and edible crops, fruits and vegetables
max. 1 mg/l
Faecal coliforms: max.
10/ml
pH: 6–9
Residual chlorine: Table 2.
max. 1 mg/l US EPA standards for
Total coliforms: max. reclaimed greywater
100/ml for restricted and
TSS: max. 30 mg/l unrestricted reuse
IJBPA Physical treatment technologies include primarily those which include adsorption by
41,1 granular activated carbon, coarse filtration by sands and soils as well as fine filtration by
membranes. Generally, this type of treatment clarifies the water from solids and reduces
the content of organic pollutants (Yoonus and Al-Ghamdi, 2020). This is achieved by three
ways: (1) physical separation of particles by filters, (2) chemical removal of contaminants
by adsorption to the solid particles of sand and (3) consumption of nutrients in greywater
by microbial organisms. According to Al-Mughalles et al. (2012), physical treatment by
206 sand filters and granular activated carbon can achieve more than 65% COD removal rate.
However, the most effective physical greywater treatment technologies are those that use
pressure-driven membrane filtration techniques, namely micro-, ultra- and nano-filtration
and also the RO. These technologies have limitations, such as high energy consumption
and high fouling rate, i.e. membranes must be replaced with a high frequency. Moreover,
according to Li et al. (2009), physical treatment technologies have to be combined with
other proper technologies to yield adequate removal of surfactants, organic matter and
nutrients.
Yet another category of technologies for greywater recycling is chemical treatment, which
includes techniques, such as coagulation, flocculation, photocatalytic oxidation, ion
exchange, and many others (Yoonus and Al-Ghamdi, 2020). It is relatively rare that
chemical processes are reported to be effective in greywater treatment (Li et al., 2009). Pidou
et al. (2008) experimentally investigated the effectiveness of chemical greywater treatment
technologies and concluded that the efficiency of organic removal is not sufficiently high to
satisfy reclaimed water quality standards of all the countries. Li et al. (2009) further
corroborates this statement by arguing that chemical treatment technologies are only
effective for the treatment of low-strength greywaters.
Lastly, a group of technologies that is considered the most effective against medium and
high strength greywaters are the biological treatment technologies. This group includes
technologies, such as SBR, MBR, rotating biological reactor, up-flow anaerobic sludge
blanket (UASB), continuous flow sequencing reactor and others (Yoonus and Al-Ghamdi,
2020). A common feature of all these technologies is that they employ microorganisms for
removal of organic matter. Generally, biological treatment technologies are often found to
provide superior performance in terms of the treatment of greywaters. Lamine et al. (2007), for
example, reports that SBR plant was able to achieve a 90% COD removal. However, among all
the biological treatment technologies, the one that is thoroughly investigated and the most
frequently cited by the scientific community is MBR. B
erub
e (2010) argues that the global
market for this technology has already been above 1.3 billion US dollars in 2010 with a 10%
annual growth rate and is stated to be an ideal technology for applications involving
wastewater reuse.
The primary criterion for shortlisting technologies for further design in the GPS-X
software was the technical performance, i.e. the capacity of a technology, as reported in
review papers, to reduce the content of chemicals to the levels required by the standards. With
this logic, chemical treatment technologies were not considered as they are only effective
against low-strength greywaters. According to Yoonus and Al-Ghamdi (2020), among the
physical treatment technologies the most promising ones are nanofiltration and RO.
However, they need to be coupled with a biological treatment technology as they are not good
at removing COD content (Li et al., 2009). As per biological treatment technologies, studies
report that SBR and MBR are very attractive options due to their high efficiency against
medium and high strength greywaters (Li et al., 2009). The latter is also reported to be
particularly cost effective solution for collective use by more than 500 residents (Li et al.,
2009). Considering all of these, the design was performed on MBR, SBR and RO technologies.
The latter in particular was coupled with a biological treatment technology, as recommended
by the literature (Li et al., 2009; Yoonus and Al-Ghamdi, 2020).
3.2 Membrane bioreactor An on-site
MBR is one of the most widely used greywater treatment technologies. It consists of very greywater
simple components and, it is derived from the conventional activated sludge (CAS) system
(B
erub
e, 2010). Similar to CAS, it uses microorganism and other biomasses to remove
treatment
contaminants from the wastewater. The main difference in their physical processes is that the system
former uses the secondary clarifiers and granular filters to retain the biomass, whereas the
latter filters them using membranes. At early stages of development of MBR, membranes
were mostly external and standalone. At present, almost all MBR systems use submerged 207
membranes since it (1) simplifies the process and (2) reduces the required capital and
operational expenses, while yielding the same treatment performance as the MBR with
standalone membrane (B
erub
e, 2010). Figure 2 below illustrates the process schematics of
submerged MBR and CAS plants.
The advantage of the MBR system is that it has small footprint area, which is very much
critical in the case of the hotel in Los Angeles, and consistently good effluent quality
(Atanasova et al., 2017). The system is also quite robust to changes in the greywater quality
(Bis et al., 2019; B
erub
e, 2010). Although it is reported to have a relatively high cost, for
multistory buildings, it is economically viable to implement the system with approximately
15 years of payback period (Jabornig, 2014).
3.2.1 Design of MBR plant by GPS-X software. For the design of plants, the GPS-X software
developed by Hydromantis Inc. was used. GPS-X (Hydromantis Inc. 2021) is the leading and
the most advanced software for design, modeling and optimization of wastewater treatment
plants. Generally, the process of designing greywater treatment systems consisted of
constructing a layout of each respective greywater treatment plant, identification of the most
significant and sensitive design parameters by optimization of these parameters to achieve
satisfactory effluent quality at a minimum cost and space.
Figure 3 below demonstrates the layout of the MBR plant, which was modeled through the
GPS-X software.
As can be seen from this schematic diagram, first, 110 m3/day of water enters through an
influent pipe and passes through coagulation and flocculation steps. For coagulation and
flocculation, alum, Al(SO4)2$12H2O and PACl solution, PAC-Al2(OH)nCl(6n), were used,
respectively. In these two stages, suspended solids and colloidal particles get enlarged in size
by adhering to each other and eventually settle. Upon passing through the primary clarifier,
this water passes through the MBR tank with four reactors in it connected in series. This is

Figure 2.
Process schematics of
(a) submerged MBR
system and (b) CAS
system
IJBPA followed by disinfection through chlorination and, eventually, transmitting clean water
41,1 through the effluent pipe. There is also a secondary cycle for the flow of sludge: it passes
through the thickener (makes the sludge denser by removing excess water), digester (breaks
down organic matter inside the sludge into carbon dioxide and methane gases), and
dewatering tank (converts slurry sludge into a solid by removing liquid contained in it).
Throughout this process, the water removed from the sludge is redirected to the primary
cycle of greywater treatment and the final sludge that undergoes through thickener, digester
208 and dewatering tank is disposed through special transport to the sludge gallery. The Sankey
diagram shown in Figure 4 illustrates how the total flow rate of influent greywater gets
distributed through the plant at various stages.
After manual sensitivity analysis, it was determined that the most influential parameters
in the case of the MBR plant shown in Figure 3 were the chlorination dosage, the volume of
chlorination tank, the dosage of alum in the coagulation stage, the dosage of PACl solution in
the flocculation stage, dissolved oxygen (DO) set points in each of the four MBR reactors as
well as volumes of these reactors and, lastly, solids capture rate of MBR tank, which has to
deal with the characteristics of the membrane, its pore size, operational pressures, etc. Table 3
summarizes the list of these parameters, search ranges used for the optimization process and
the final optimum values obtain thereafter.
After undergoing the treatment process, the content of BOD5, TSS, residual Cl2, total
coliform count and pH have changed as shown in Figure 5.
The content of all the chemicals is below the limits set forth by EPA. The graph for pH
level is not shown, but it does not change during the treatment by this plant, i.e. it stays
constant at 7.0 as it was initially. Other than these, the magnitude of some important
parameters is presented in Table 4 so that changes occurring during the treatment can be
better observed.

Figure 3.
Layout of the MBR
plant as modeled in the
GPS-X software

Figure 4.
Sankey diagram
showing the
distribution of flow
rate of greywater
throughout the plant
To further illustrate the dynamics of changes in the plant, two more Sankey diagrams are An on-site
presented in Figures 6 and 7, which display, respectively, the spatial distribution of TSS and greywater
COD in the plant:
As can be observed from Figures 6 and 7, most of the TSS and COD are removed during
treatment
the primary clarification stage. system
3.2.2 Verification by hand calculation. This section presents the hand calculations used to
verify the validity of software modeling results. It is important to emphasize that not all the
calculations can be done by hand since (1) the plant consists of a multitude of sub-elements in 209
each of which the content of chemicals undergo some changes and (2) software design was
conducted through dynamic simulations meaning that there is no steady-state condition and
the concentration of chemicals in each successive time period is directly or indirectly
influenced by conditions in the previous timestep. Thus, the calculations presented below are
completely in line with the software results. First, the coliform count was calculated as follows
(Hydromantis, 2019):
ðchlorine doseÞðVtank =QÞðt10; ratio Þ
log inactivation ¼    
ð0:2828Þ pH 2:69 chlorine dose0:15 0:933T−5
ð5:7 g=m3 Þð2:6m3 =108:5 m3 =dayÞð0:7Þ
¼     ¼ 5:656
ð0:2828Þ 7:02:69 ð5:7 g=m3 Þ0:15 0:93320−5

initial coliform count 4:1e6

coliform count ¼ ¼ 5:656 ¼ 9:05
10log inactivation 10
Similarly, to understand why pH level does not change, the reaction of the alum dissolving in
the greywater can be shown as:
Al2 ðSO4 Þ3$14H2 O þ 6HCO−3 ↔ 2AlðOHÞ3 $3H2 O þ 6CO2 þ 8H2 O þ 3SO2−
4

Since there is a non-zero alkalinity, according to the chemical reaction above, pH level of the
water does not change.
The concentration of residual chlorine, Cavailable, after a part of chlorine is lost to satisfy
some portion of the instantaneous demand can be estimated through the formula below:
Cdose 5:7 g=m3
Cavailable ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:844 g=m3
1 þ kinact $t 1 þ 10$6034:51 min
min=hour

Parameter Optimum Units Search range

Cl2 5.7 mg/L 2.0–9.0

Vchlorification tank 2.6 m3 1.0–8.0
Alum 4.3 mg(Al)/L 0.0–15.0
PAC-Al2(OH)nCl(6n) 3.6 mg(Al)/L 0.0–15.0
DOsetpoint, 1 1.9 mg(O2)/L 0.0–10.0 Table 3.
DOsetpoint, 2 1.9 mg(O2)/L 0.0–10.0 Parameters used for
DOsetpoint, 3 1.9 mg(O2)/L 0.0–10.0 optimization of the
DOsetpoint, 4 1.9 mg(O2)/L 0.0–10.0 MBR plant’s operation,
VMBR 2.1 m3 0.0–10.0 search ranges and final
(Solids capture rate) MBR 0.999 – 0.99–0.9999 optimum values
IJBPA
41,1

210

Figure 5.
The limits set by EPA
standards and the
content of BOD5, TSS,
residual Cl2 and total
coliform count within
the greywater after the
treatment with MBR
Now, the instantaneous chlorine demand, Cinst, for chlorine-ammonia reaction and by-product An on-site
formation can be calculated through this formula: greywater
 
Cinst ¼ exp −A1;inst þ A2;inst $log
Cdose
þ A3;inst $logðUV254 Þ þ A4;inst $logðsTOCÞ treatment
TOC system
" ! #
5:7g=m3  −1

¼ exp −0:62 þ 0:522$log þ 0:302$log 0:001cm þ 0:842$logð55:7Þ
171:3g=m3 211
¼ 0:437 mg=L

3.2.3 Operational costs of MBR. To calculate the operational costs of the MBR plant,
CapdetWorksTM tool was employed with unit costs based on US EPA computer assisted
procedure for design and evaluation of treatment systems (Hydromantis, 2018). The
following unit costs were assigned to the processes involved in MBR plant:

Before After

BOD5 [mg/L] 295 4.77

pH 7.0 7.0
TSS [mg/L] 195.4 7.37
Residual chloride [mg/L] – 0.956
Total coliform [CFU/100 mL] 4.1 3 106 9.061
Total COD [mg/L] 535.1 39.1 Table 4.
Alkalinity [mg/L (CaCO3)] 227.4 14.73 The magnitude of some
VSS/TSS 0.767 0.775 important parameters
TKN [mg/L] 25.1 5.58 before and after the
N-NH4þ [mg/L] 14.4 3.29 treatment with
P-PO43 [mg/L] 6.7 1.82 MBR plant

Figure 6.
Sankey diagram
showing the
distribution of the
amount of TSS in the
water throughout
the plant

Figure 7.
Sankey diagram
showing the
distribution of the COD
levels in the water
throughout the plant
IJBPA (1) Energy Price: 0.1 USD/kWh
41,1 (2) Alum (16% purity): 0.32 USD/kg
(3) PAC-Al2(OH)nCl(6n): 0.50 USD/kg
(4) Clarifier: 0.35 kW
(5) MBR: 3.0 W/m3
212
(6) NaOCl (70% purity): 1.1 USD/kg
(7) Thickener: 2.2 kW
(8) Digester: 3.0 W/m3
(9) Dewatering: 2.2 kW
(10) Sludge disposal cost: 80.0 USD/tonnes
Based on these unit costs, the operational expenditures of the plant were estimated to be
24.99 USD/day (Figure 8).
As can be seen from Figure 8, most of the daily expenses are concentrated at coagulation
tank and MBR reactors. Figure 9 shows the breakdown of daily expenses by various
categories of costs.
The pie chart in Figure 9 shows that cost of chemical consumables makes up more than
half of all the daily expenses, followed by aeration costs, pumping costs and sludge
disposal costs.

3.3 Sequencing batch reactor

SBR is essentially a tank with an activated sludge system, in which all kinds of treatment
processes, including COD/BOD removal, oxidation, settling, nitrification and de-nitrification,
take place (Savage and Diaz, 2006; Ergas and Aponte-Morales, 2014). A constant air supply is
provided into the tank by pumping to ensure that there is always enough oxygen available
within the system for aerobic biodegradation to take place. The treatment process consists of
at least six stages, all occurring inside a single fill-and-draw type reactor (Ergas and Aponte-
Morales, 2014). First, a new batch of greywater is supplied into the chamber with nitrified
mixed liquor suspended solids remaining from preceding cycles. Then, the greywater is
mixed anoxically to denitrify the greywater. The next stage is aeration, in which BOD within
the greywater is oxidized, and the Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) is nitrified. Afterward,
aeration and mixing of the wastewater are stopped and the sludge can settle. This is followed
by decanting, i.e. gradually pouring the liquid at the higher levels to another container
without disturbing sediments at the bottom of the tank. Lastly, all these stages are concluded
by an “idle” stage, which is aimed at obtaining some variability in the flow rate. These six
stages are graphically summarized in Figure 10.

Figure 8.
Operational cost of the
MBR plant at various
stages
 An on-site
greywater
treatment
system

213

Figure 9.
Costs of various types
of consumables

Figure 10.
Six stages of SBR

The advantages of the SBR technology are related to the high treatment efficiency which
allows a broad flexibility level in operational conditions. However, the technology is limited in
the sense that it cannot remove pathogens effectively and requires high capital expenditures
(CAPEX) and operating expenses (OPEX) as well as stringent maintenance requirements. For
disinfection of the greywater, a conventional chlorination tank was included in the plant.
3.3.1 Design of SBR plant by GPS-X software. Figure 11 displays the layout of the SBR
plant which was modeled in the GPS-X software.
As in the case of MBR plant, several parameters that have the greatest influence on the
objective functions were identified by manually adjusting the process controls. By varying
these parameters within a reasonable range, their magnitude was optimized. The results are
summarized in Table 5.
IJBPA
41,1

214

Figure 11.
Layout of the SBR
plant as modeled in the
GPS-X software
Here it should be emphasized that the surface area of the SBR tank was left to be large An on-site
because otherwise the performance of the plant, especially the COD and BOD removal greywater
efficiencies were significantly reduced. With the optimum values shown in Table 5, the SBR
plant was able to keep the control variables below the limits set by US EPA (Figure 12).
treatment
Some more numerical results that show how the chemical content of the greywater has system
changed after the treatment is shown in Table 6.
215

Parameter Optimum Units Search range

DOsetpoint, 1 of equalization (EQ) tank 2.0 mg(O2)/L 0.0–10.0

Valum tank #1 100 m3 0.0–500.0
Valum tank #2 50 m3 0.0–200.0
Valum tank #3 10 m3 0.0–20.0 Table 5.
Surface area of SBR tanks 330 m2 0.0–500.0 Parameters used for
DOsetpoint of aeration phases 2.0 mg(O2)/L 0.0–10.0 optimization of the
Alum 0.83 mg/L 0.0–10.0 SBR plant’s operation,
NaOCl 9.9 mg/L 0.0–50.0 search ranges and final
Vchlorination tank 120 m3 0.0–10.0 optimum values

Figure 12.
The limits set by EPA
standards and the
content of BOD5, TSS,
residual Cl2 and total
coliform count within
the greywater after the
treatment with SBR
IJBPA 3.3.2 Verification by hand calculation. The total coliform count was calculated as follows:
41,1 ðchlorine doseÞðVtank =QÞðt10;ratio Þ
log inactivation ¼    
ð0:2828Þ pH 2:69 chlorine dose0:15 0:933T−5
ð9:9 g=m3 Þð120 m3 =4941m3 =dayÞð0:7Þ
¼     ¼ 9:164
ð0:2828Þ 7:02:69 ð9:9 g=m3 Þ0:15 0:93320−5
216
initial coliform count 4:1e6
coliform count ¼ ¼ 9:164 ¼ 0:01
10log inactivation 10
As in the case of the MBR plant, the level of pH does not change, and no chemical is added that
consumes alkalinity during the process:
Al2 ðSO4 Þ3$14H2 O þ 6HCO−3 ↔ 2AlðOHÞ3 $3H2 O þ 6CO2 þ 8H2 O þ 3SO2−
4

Therefore, based in the same chemical reaction shown above, the level of pH within the
greywater does not change in the case of SBR plant.
The available chlorine before the instantaneous chlorine demand is consumed is as shown
below:
Cdose 9:9 g=m3
Cavailable ¼ ¼ ¼ 1:450 g=m3
1 þ kinact $t 1 þ 10$6034:97 min
min=hour

Finally, the instantaneous chlorine demand itself can be estimated using the following
relation:
 
Cdose
Cinst ¼ exp −A1;inst þ A2;inst $log þ A3;inst $logðUV254 Þ þ A4;inst $logðsTOCÞ
TOC
" !
9:9 g=m3  
¼ exp −0:62 þ 0:522$log 3
þ 0:302$log 0:001 cm−1
171:3 g=m
#
þ 0:842$logð55:7Þ

¼ 0:495mg=L

Before After

BOD5 [mg/L] 295 4.42

pH 7.0 7.0
TSS [mg/L] 195.4 15.81
Residual chloride [mg/L] – 0.0
Total coliform [CFU/100 mL] 4.1 3 106 9.018
Table 6. Total COD [mg/L] 535.1 45.03
The magnitude of some Alkalinity [mg/L (CaCO3)] 227.4 14.73
important parameters VSS/TSS 0.767 0.4584
before and after the TKN [mg/L] 25.1 3.624
treatment with the N-NH4þ [mg/L] 14.4 0.2866
SBR plant P-PO43 [mg/L] 6.7 0.9974
3.3.3 Operational costs of sequencing batch reactor. The following unit costs from the An on-site
CapdetWorks database will be used to estimate the daily operational expenses of the greywater
SBR plant:
treatment
(1) Energy Price: 0.1 USD/kWh. system
(2) Alum (16% purity): 0.32 USD/kg.
(3) PAC-Al2(OH)nCl(6–n): 0.50 USD/kg. 217
(4) Clarifier: 0.35 kW.
(5) SBR Mixing Energy Usage: 3.0 W/m3.
(6) NaOCl (70% purity): 1.1 USD/kg.
(7) Thickener: 2.2 kW.
(8) Digester: 3.0 W/m3.
(9) Sludge disposal cost: 80.0 USD/tonne.
The resultant operational cost is 116.29 USD per day and as can be seen from the Sankey
diagram in Figure 13, chlorination tank is responsible for a major part of this cost.
This is partially because SBR technology is ineffective against pathogens; therefore, to
keep the number of coliforms below the limit, the chlorination tank consumes vast amounts of
NaOCl solution on a daily basis.

3.4 Reverse osmosis with the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket

The last, third technology to be designed for the Hotel is RO, which purifies the water by
pushing the greywater through membranes with pores in with a diameter in the order of
nanometers under high pressures. The RO is quite conventional technology for the treatment
of potable waters; however, it is not quite effective in terms of removal of chemical and
biological oxygen demand. Elmitwalli et al. (2007) recommended combining aerobic and
anaerobic treatment technologies to leverage the advantages of both technologies to achieve
more superior greywater treatment performance and suggested placing anaerobic treatment
at early stages before the physical treatment. However, the obtained results with RO and
UASB showed that this is not the case and, in this case, UASB does not address the
limitations of RO in terms of COD/BOD removal. Therefore, against this recommendation, the
UASB plant was placed at later stages, just before the RO step (refer to Figure 14).

Figure 13.
Breakdown of
operational costs of the
SBR plant
IJBPA
41,1

218

Figure 14.
Layout of the RO with
UASB plant as
modeled in the GPS-X
software
3.4.1 Design of reverse osmosis with upflow anaerobic sludge blanket by GPS-X software. The An on-site
layout of the RO with UASB plant modeled through the GPS-X software is shown in Figure 14. greywater
After optimizing volumes of various tanks, dosages of chemical consumables, pore sizes
of membranes and temperature within the UASB reactor, pipe diameter and number of
treatment
vessels inside the RO reactor, the magnitudes of BOD5, pH, total coliform count and TSS to system
the levels were reduced to the levels shown in Figure 15.
More quantitative results comparing the greywater quality before and after the treatment
can be found in Table 7. 219
3.4.2 Verification by hand calculation. First of all, the number of total coliforms is
calculated as follows:

ðchlorine doseÞðVtank =QÞðt10;ratio Þ

log inactivation ¼    
ð0:2828Þ pH 2:69 chlorine dose0:15 0:933T−5
 
12:0g=m3 ð30 m3 =108:5 m3 =dayÞð0:7Þ
¼   0:15   ¼ 122:9
ð0:2828Þ 7:02:69 12:0 g=m3 0:93320−5

initial coliform count 4:1e6

coliform count ¼ ¼ 122:9 ¼ 0:00
10log inactivation 10
In this case, due to high retention time, the number of coliforms is reduced to practically zero. The
available chlorine before exhausting the instantaneous chlorine demand is as shown below:
Cdose 12:0 g=m3
Cavailable ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:178g=m3
1 þ kinact $t 1 þ 10$60398:16 min
min=hour

The last calculation is for the instantaneous chlorine demand:

 
Cdose
Cinst ¼ exp −A1;inst þ A2;inst $log þ A3;inst $logðUV254 Þ þ A4;inst $logðsTOCÞ
TOC
" ! #
12:0g=m
3
 −1

¼ exp −0:62 þ 0:522$log þ 0:302$log 0:001cm þ 0:842$logð55:7Þ
171:3g=m3
¼ 0:518mg=L

3.4.3 Operational costs of reverse osmosis with upflow anaerobic sludge blanket. Unit costs
were again obtained from the CapdetWorks database and are practically the same as the ones
presented in sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.3. The only new cost item may be that UASB plant 20.0 kW
of power which is estimated at 0.1 USD/kWh. Overall, the estimates show that the plant will
consume about 10.01 USD per day not including the cost of membranes in RO which have to
be replaced periodically (Figure 16). Most of the daily operational expenses are constituted by
chemical consumables.

4. Overall cost analysis and technology selection

To develop an optimal solution selection, it is necessary to calculate the capital and
operational expenditures and, if applicable, a life cycle cost or net present value needs to be
estimated. It is recommended to conduct a detailed cost estimation for each plant, considering
the construction costs, maintenance needs and replacement of various supplementary for
IJBPA
41,1

220

Figure 15.
The limits set by EPA
standards and the
content of BOD5, TSS,
residual Cl2 and total
coliform count within
the greywater after the
treatment with RO
with UASB
each component of plants. However, data availability is an issue, especially for SBR and RO An on-site
with UASB. In the present report, CAPEX, OPEX and net present value (also called life cycle greywater
cost) were calculated using relations proposed in scientific publications based on a statistical
analysis of industry data or regression analysis. For MBR, Lo et al. (2015) suggest using the
treatment
following relations for estimation of CAPEX, OPEX, and NPV: system
CAPEX ¼ 1060$Q0:872 ¼ 1060$108:50:872 ¼ 63; 124 USD
OPEX ¼ ð−0:0509$ln Q þ 0:664Þ$Q ¼ ð−0:0509$ln108:5 þ 0:664Þ$108:5 221
¼ 97:9 USD=day ¼ 35; 743 USD=year
Consumables ¼ 25:0 USD=day ¼ 9; 125 USD=year
NPV ¼ 1265$t 0:44 $Q−0:00385$lntþ0:868 ¼ 1265$200:44 $108:5−0:00385$ln20þ0:868 ¼ 261; 710 USD

Similarly, based on statistical data from US EPA (United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 2021) and Advisian (Advisian, 2021), the CAPEX and OPEX of SBR and RO with
UASB plants were calculated as shown in Table 8.
All these cost analysis results are presented in Figure 17.
Despite difficulties estimating the net present value of SBR and RO with UASB, it is evident
that MBR is the optimal choice based on the economic feasibility criterion. There are other non-
financial factors that must be considered to make the final decision, such as space requirements,
robustness of performance of these technologies, capacity to consistently yield an effluent
quality compliant with the EPA standards, percent recovery, etc. All of these are necessary
conditions for the alternative technologies to be considered for further design steps. When
compared against these criteria, SBR proved to be unsuitable for use in the Hotel as it requires

Before After

BOD5 [mg/L] 295 5.698

pH 7.0 6.386
TSS [mg/L] 195.4 0.0
Residual chloride [mg/L] – 0.0
Total coliform [CFU/100 mL] 4.1 3 106 0.0
Total COD [mg/L] 535.1 97.85 Table 7.
Alkalinity [mg/L (CaCO3)] 227.4 14.73 The magnitude of some
VSS/TSS 0.767 0.0 important parameters
TKN [mg/L] 25.1 25.86 before and after the
N-NH4þ [mg/L] 14.4 19.39 treatment with RO
P-PO43 [mg/L] 6.7 0.4039 with UASB

Figure 16.
Operational costs of
RO with UASB

CAPEX OPEX Table 8.

CAPEX and OPEX of
SBR 139,900 USD 42,340 USD/year SBR and RO
RO with UASB 226,000 USD 23,650 USD/year with UASB
IJBPA
41,1

222

Figure 17.
CAPEX and OPEX of
MBR, SBR and RO
with UASB

large land areas and is also inefficient in terms of removal of pathogens. On the other hand, for
RO with UASB, the main challenge is low BOD and COD removal rate and low recovery level,
just above 50% (in contrast to 98.6% for MBR plant). As per MBR, its main limitation is the
relatively high cost, which, however, is significantly lower than that of its competitors. However,
studies show that it is financially feasible with an average of 15-year payback period if
implemented in a multi-story building. Taking all these factors into account, the MBR plant
appears to be a clear winner and thus, may be used for further detailed design stages.

5. Discussion and conclusions

The challenges associated with the ongoing climate change and energy scarcity demand
industries across the globe to adopt new ways of development and operation. The impact of
construction and hospitality industries on the resources and the environment are evidently
significant. This study aimed at designing and modeling a greywater treatment plant for a
newly designed hotel building. The objective was to perform a detailed design, run modeling
and optimization of a greywater treatment plant. The greywater treatment plant aimed to
address the shortage of potable water and the lack of adequate and environmental-friendly
sewage systems. In this project, state of the art technologies for the treatment of greywaters
were reviewed, and thereafter, MBR, SBR and RO with UASB were modeled through the
GPS-X software. The results from the software were verified through hand calculations and
finally, capital and operational expenses required for the implementation of each of the plants
were calculated. Overall, due to its relatively low CAPEX and OPEX as well superior
technical performance, it was decided to implement the MBR plant into the hotel building.
The proposed methods for the design and modeling of a greywater treatment plant
allowed addressing the research gap identified in the literature review. Specifically, the
findings of the paper were able to narrow the gap by conducting a comparative analysis of the
technical and economic performance of MBR, SBR and RO with UASB using GPS-X
simulations and the CapdetWorks database. By conducting this comparative analysis, we
have outlined a methodology that could be useful for wastewater recycling and treatment-
related stakeholders. Together with feasibility analysis, the results of the study may be
conducive to governmental efforts to promote on-site greywater treatment plants as one of
the cost-effective and promising green technologies with a potential to improve the
environmental impact of the hospitality industry, while enhancing the positive image of An on-site
hotels in the eyes of customers. greywater
The proposed process for designing and modeling mentioned greywater treatment plants
including the selected MBR plant helps the hotels related stakeholders to make decisions
treatment
while selecting the greywater treatment solutions. In the long terms perspective, the proposed system
design and modeling procedures help these stakeholders and their hotel buildings to preserve
the eco-system, stay compliant with the government laws and regulations and be financially
sustainable. 223

References
Advisian (2021), “The cost of desalination”, available at: https://www.advisian.com/en/global-
perspectives/the-cost-of-desalination (accessed 2 April 2021).
Al-Mughalles, M.H., Abdul Rahman, R., Suja, F.B., Mahmud, M. and Abdullah, S.M.S. (2012),
“Greywater treatment using GAC biofilm reactor and sand filter system”, Australian Journal of
Basic and Applied Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 283-292.
Atanasova, N., Dalmau, M., Comas, J., Poch, M., Rodriguez-Roda, I. and Buttiglieri, G. (2017),
“Optimized MBR for greywater reuse systems in hotel facilities”, Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 193, May, pp. 503-511, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.02.041.
B
erub
e, P. (2010), “Chapter 9. Membrane bioreactors: theory and applications to wastewater reuse”, in
Sustainability Science and Engineering, Elsevier B.V, Amsterdam, Vol. 2, pp. 255-292. doi: 10.
1016/S1871-2711(09)00209-8.
Bis, M., Montusiewicz, A., Adam, P. and Łag
od, G. (2019), “Modeling of wastewater treatment
processes in membrane bioreactors compared to conventional activated sludge systems”,
Processes, Vol. 7 No. 5, p. 285, doi: 10.3390/pr7050285.
Bohdanowicz, P. (2006), “Environmental awareness and initiatives in the Swedish and polish hotel
industries—survey results”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 662-682, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2005.06.006.
Ecorys (2009), “Study on the competitiveness of the EU tourism industry”, available at: https://op.
europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/43457894-3281-4181-80fe-0745b8e2c78f.
Edry, L. (2021), “Water resource development for Los Angeles county plan”, available at: http://www.
csun.edu/∼le288758/Water_Supply_Paper.htm (accessed 21 March 2021).
Elmitwalli, T.A. and Ralf, O. (2007), “Anaerobic biodegradability and treatment of grey water in
Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor”, Water Research, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1379-1387,
doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2006.12.016.
Ergas, S.J. and Aponte-Morales, V. (2014), “Biological nitrogen removal”, Comprehensive Water Quality
and Purification, Elsevier, pp. 123-149, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-382182-9.00047-5.
Han, H. and Yoon, H.J. (2015), “Hotel customers’ environmentally responsible behavioral intention:
impact of key constructs on decision in green consumerism”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 45, February, pp. 22-33, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.11.004.
Hathroubi, S., Peypoch, N. and Robinot, E. (2014), “Technical efficiency and environmental
management: the Tunisian case”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 21,
December, pp. 27-33, doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.03.002.
Hocaoglu, S.M. (2017), “Evaluations of on-site wastewater reuse alternatives for hotels through water
balance”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 122, July, pp. 43-50, doi: 10.1016/J.
Resconrec.2017.01.022.
Hydromantis (2018), CapdetWorks, Hydromantis, available at: https://www.hydromantis.com/
CapdetWorks.html.
Hydromantis (2019), GPS-X Technical Reference - v8.0, available at: https://www.hydromantis.com/
help/GPS-X/docs/8.0/Technical/index.html.
IJBPA Hydromantis Inc. (2021), GPS-X, Hydromantis, available at: https://www.hydromantis.com/
GPSX.html.
41,1
Jabornig, S. (2014), “Overview and feasibility of advanced grey water treatment systems for single
households”, Urban Water Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 361-369, doi: 10.1080/1573062X.2013.783086.
Jefferson, B., Palmer, A.P., Jeffrey, R.S. and Judd, S. (2004), “Grey water characterisation and its impact
on the selection and operation of technologies for urban reuse”, Water Science and Technology,
Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 157-164, doi: 10.2166/wst.2004.0113.
224
Kasim, A., Gursoy, D., Okumus, F. and Wong, A. (2014), “The importance of water management in
hotels: a framework for sustainability through innovation”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 1090-1107, doi: 10.1080/09669582.2013.873444.
Kularatne, T., Wilson, C., Jonas, M., Hoang, V. and Lee, B. (2019), “Do environmentally sustainable
practices make hotels more efficient? A study of major hotels in Sri Lanka”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 71, April, pp. 213-225, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.009.
Lamine, M., Bousselmi, L. and Ghrabi, A. (2007), “Biological treatment of grey water using sequencing
batch reactor”, Desalination, Vol. 215 Nos 1-3, pp. 127-132, doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2006.11.017.
Li, F., Wichmann, K. and Otterpohl, R. (2009), “Review of the technological approaches for grey water
treatment and reuses”, Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 407 No. 11, pp. 3439-3449, doi: 10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2009.02.004.
Lo, C.H., McAdam, E. and Judd, S. (2015), “The cost of a small membrane bioreactor”, Water Science
and Technology, Vol. 72 No. 10, pp. 1739-1746, doi: 10.2166/wst.2015.394.
Pidou, M., Avery, L., Stephenson, T., Jeffrey, P., Parsons, S.A., Liu, S., Memon, Fayyaz A. and
Jefferson, B. (2008), “Chemical solutions for greywater recycling”, Chemosphere, Vol. 71 No. 1,
pp. 147-155, doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.10.046.
Savage, G.M. and Diaz, L.F. (2006), “Biological processes”, Waste Management Series, pp. 171-218,
available at: https://sanitarac.pro/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Solid-Waste-Management.pdf.
Styles, D., Sch€onberger, H. and Martos, J.L.G. (2013), Best Environmental Management Practice in the
Tourism Sector, 1st ed., Joint Research Center, Luxembourg. doi: 10.2788/33972.
Thomas, M.L. (2020), Doctor of Philosophy, ProQuest LLC, Walden University, doi: 10.1503/cmaj.180710.
United Nations World Tourism Organisation (2021), International Tourism Highlights, 2020 Edition,
World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), doi: 10.18111/9789284422456.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2021), Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet:
Sequencing Batch Reactors, Washington, DC, available at: https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
sbr_new.pdf.
US Environmental Protection Agency (2012), “2012 guidelines for water reuse”, in Nancy, S., Eric, P. and
Lek, K. (Eds), 2nd ed., US Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-08/documents/2012-guidelines-water-reuse.pdf.
USC Viterbi (2021), “Los Angeles water issue: why it’s not just the drought”, available at: https://
viterbi.usc.edu/water/ (accessed 21 March 2021).
Yoonus, H. and Al-Ghamdi, S.G. (2020), “Environmental performance of building integrated grey water
reuse systems based on life-cycle assessment: a systematic and bibliographic analysis”, Science of
The Total Environment, Vol. 712, April, p. 136535, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136535.

Corresponding author
Serik Tokbolat can be contacted at: serik.tokbolat@ntu.ac.uk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com