Next Article in Journal
Revealing the Value of “Green” and the Small Group with a Big Heart in Transportation Mode Choice
Next Article in Special Issue
Urban Architecture as Connective-Collective Intelligence. Which Spaces of Interaction?
Previous Article in Journal
Establishment of Alleycropped Hybrid Aspen “Crandon” in Central Iowa, USA: Effects of Topographic Position and Fertilizer Rate on Aboveground Biomass Production and Allocation
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Critical Assessment and Projection of Urban Vertical Growth in Antofagasta, Chile
Sustainability 2013, 5(7), 2887-2912; doi:10.3390/su5072887
Article

Shared Urban Greywater Recycling Systems: Water Resource Savings and Economic Investment

1
, 1,* , 2
 and 1
Received: 28 April 2013; in revised form: 6 June 2013 / Accepted: 21 June 2013 / Published: 3 July 2013
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [1394 KB, uploaded 3 July 2013]   |   Browse Figures
Abstract: The water industry is becoming increasingly aware of the risks associated with urban supplies not meeting demands by 2050. Greywater (GW) recycling for non-potable uses (e.g., urinal and toilet flushing) provides an urban water management strategy to help alleviate this risk by reducing main water demands. This paper proposes an innovative cross connected system that collects GW from residential buildings and recycles it for toilet/urinal flushing in both residential and office buildings. The capital cost (CAPEX), operational cost (OPEX) and water saving potential are calculated for individual and shared residential and office buildings in an urban mixed-use regeneration area in the UK, assuming two different treatment processes; a membrane bioreactor (MBR) and a vertical flow constructed wetland (VFCW). The Net Present Value (NPV) method was used to compare the financial performance of each considered scenario, from where it was found that a shared GW recycling system (MBR) was the most economically viable option. The sensitivity of this financial model was assessed, considering four parameters (i.e., water supply and sewerage charges, discount rate(s), service life and improved technological efficiency, e.g., low flush toilets, low shower heads, etc.), from where it was found that shared GW systems performed best in the long-term.
Keywords: urban mixed-use development; greywater recycling; vertical flow constructed wetland; membrane bioreactor; water saving devices urban mixed-use development; greywater recycling; vertical flow constructed wetland; membrane bioreactor; water saving devices
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Export to BibTeX |
EndNote


MDPI and ACS Style

Zadeh, S.M.; Hunt, D.V.; Lombardi, D.R.; Rogers, C.D. Shared Urban Greywater Recycling Systems: Water Resource Savings and Economic Investment. Sustainability 2013, 5, 2887-2912.

AMA Style

Zadeh SM, Hunt DV, Lombardi DR, Rogers CD. Shared Urban Greywater Recycling Systems: Water Resource Savings and Economic Investment. Sustainability. 2013; 5(7):2887-2912.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zadeh, Sara M.; Hunt, Dexter V.; Lombardi, D. R.; Rogers, Christopher D. 2013. "Shared Urban Greywater Recycling Systems: Water Resource Savings and Economic Investment." Sustainability 5, no. 7: 2887-2912.


Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert