Centralised and Decentralised Transport Systems for Greywater and the Application of Nanotechnology for Treatment Processes

  • A. Athirah
  • Adel Ali Saeed Al-Gheethi
  • Efaq Ali Noman
  • Radin Maya Saphira Radin Mohamed
  • Amir Hashim Mohd Kassim
Part of the Water Science and Technology Library book series (WSTL, volume 87)


Centralised and decentralised treatment systems for greywater are used based on the available sites, economic conditions and facilities of the treatment system. However, the decentralised system is a priority for rural regions for the recycling of greywater because it is inexpensive and does not result in toxic byproducts. This system also does not require maintenance or chemical additives. This system reduces the amount of wastewater produced, reduces dependence on traditional water supply and saves cost especially for low-income populations. The utilisation of the decentralised treatment system facility for the treatment of wastewater may help to reduce organic matters in waste efficiently. Transport models are typically applied to simulate water and solute movement in different porous media in order to understand the movement of pollutants in the soils and nutrient uptake by plants. Moreover, the utilisation of nanotechnology in the treatment of wastewater has emerged recently. This technique appears to exhibit high efficiency in the removal of micro-pollutants from wastewater. However, recent research has indicated that certain types of nanomaterial used in wastewater treatment may be toxic. In this chapter, the advantages and disadvantages of centralised and decentralised systems, as well as transport models, are reviewed. The challenges associated with the application of this technology in developing countries are discussed.


Transport model Centralised and decentralised system Nanomaterials Health risk 



Special gratitude goes to the laboratory technicians at the Micropollutant Research Centre, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM) for providing the facilities for this research. The authors also wish to thank the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) for supporting this research under FRGS vot 1574 and also the Research Management Centre (RMC) UTHM for providing grant IGSP U682 for this research.


  1. Ahmed M, Arora M (2012) Suitability of Grey Water Recycling as decentralized alternative water supply option for Integrated Urban Water Management. J Eng 2(9):31–35Google Scholar
  2. Al-Gheethi AA, Ismail N, Efaq AN, Bala JD, Al-Amery RM (2015) Solar disinfection and lime stabilization processes for reduction of pathogenic bacteria in sewage effluents and biosolids for agricultural purposes in Yemen. J Water Reuse Desalin 5(3):419–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bansode S, Patil K (2016) Water balance assessment using Q-SWAT. Int J Eng Res 5(6):2319–6890Google Scholar
  4. Baun A, Sørensen SN, Rasmussen RF, Hartmann NB, Koch CB (2008) Toxicity and bioaccumulation of xenobiotic organic compounds in the presence of aqueous suspensions of aggregates of nano-C60. Aquat Toxicol 86(3):379–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck MB (1982) Identifying models of environmental systems’ behaviour. Math Model 3(5):467–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benson A, Zane M, Becker TE, Visser A, Uriostegui SH, DeRubeis E, Moran JE, Esser BK, Clark JF (2014) Quantifying reaeration rates in alpine streams using deliberate gas tracer experiments. Water (Switzerland) 6(4):1013–1027Google Scholar
  7. Capodaglio AG (2017) Integrated, decentralized wastewater management for resource recovery in rural and peri-urban areas. Res 6(2):1–22Google Scholar
  8. Cathey AM (2005) The calibration, validation, and sensitivity analysis of Do sag: an instream dissolved oxygen model. University of Georgia, Master of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  9. Chirisa I, Bandauko E, Matamanda A, Mandisvika G (2016) Decentralized domestic wastewater systems in developing countries: the case study of Harare (Zimbabwe). Appl Water Sci 1–10Google Scholar
  10. Chung S (1998) Modeling the fate and transport of agricultural pollutants and their environmental impact on surface and subsurface water quality. Ph.D. thesis, Iowa State University, Ames IowaGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowan DM, Kingsbury T, Perez AL, Woods TA, Kovochich M, Hill DS, Madl AK, Paustenbach DJ (2014) Evaluation of the California safer consumer products regulation and the impact on consumers and product manufacturers. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 68:23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis ML, Cornwell DA (2013) Introduction of environment engineering, 5th edn. Open University Press, Mcgraw-Hill InternationalGoogle Scholar
  13. Dhinadhayalan M, Nema AK (2012) Decentralised wastewater management new concepts and innovative technological feasibility for developing countries. Sustain Environ Res 22(1):39–44Google Scholar
  14. Feng C, Hu A, Chen S, Yu CP (2013) A decentralized wastewater treatment system using microbial fuel cell techniques and its response to a copper shock load. Biores Technol 143:76–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gabarrell X, Morales-Pinzón T, Rieradevall J, Rovira MR, Villalba G, Josa A, Martínez-Gasol C, Dias AC, Martínez-Aceves DX (2014) Plugrisost: a model for design, economic cost and environmental analysis of rainwater harvesting in urban systems. Water Practice Technol 9(2):243–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Golmohammadi G, Rudra RP, Prasher SO, Madani A, Goel PK, Mohammadi K (2016) Modeling the impacts of tillage practices on water table depth, drain outflow and nitrogen losses using DRAINMOD. Comput Electron Agric 124:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunady M, Shishkina N, Tan H, Rodriquez C (2015) A review of on-site wastewater treatment systems in Western Australia from 1997 to 2011. J Environ Public Health 2015:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guo X, Liu Z, Chen M, Liu J, Yang M (2014) Decentralized wastewater treatment technologies and management in Chinese villages. Frontiers Environ Sci Eng 8(6):929–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haider H, Al W, Haydar S (2013) A review of dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand models for large river. Pak J Engg Appl Sci 12:127–142Google Scholar
  20. Haris H, Chow MF, Usman F, Sidek LM, Roseli ZA, Norlida MD (2016) Urban stormwater management model and tools for designing stormwater management of green infrastructure practices. In: IOP conference series: earth and environmental science, vol 32, pp 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hartmann NB, Baun A (2010) The nano cocktail: ecotoxicological effects of engineered nanoparticles in chemical mixtures. Integr Environ Assess Manage 6(2):311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. He SJ, Wang JL, Ye LF, Zhang YX, Yu J (2014) Removal of diclofenac from surface water by electron beam irradiation combined with a biological aerated filter. Radiat Phys Chem 105:104–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hendrawan D, Widarnako S, Moersidik S, Triwenko WR (2013) Evaluation of centralized WWTP and the need of communal Wwtp in supporting community-based sanitation in Indonesia. Eur Sci J 9(17):1857–7881Google Scholar
  24. Hendriarianti E, Karnaningroem N (2015) Rate of nitrification-denitrification Brantas River in the city of Malang. Appl Environ Biol Sci 5(12):978–979Google Scholar
  25. Hjorth R, Hansen SF, Jacobs M, Tickner J, Ellenbecker M, Baun A (2017) The applicability of chemical alternatives assessment for engineered nanomaterials. Int Environ Assess Manage 13(1):177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacobs MM, Malloy TF, Tickner JA, Edwards S (2015) Alternatives assessment frameworks: research needs for the informed substitution of hazardous chemicals. Environ Health Persp 124:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jolankai G (2000). Description of the CAL programme on water quality modelling. Basic river and lake water quality models, 2nd edn. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  28. Kowalska B, Kowalski D, Widomski MK (2013) Modelling of hydraulics and pollutants transport in Sewer systems. Monografie—PolitechnikaLubelska. Lublin University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  29. Kumarasamy M (2011) Simulation of spatial and temporal variations of dissolved oxygen of Baynespruit stream in South Africa. Water Res Manage 145:403–414Google Scholar
  30. Lakshmi C, Ranjitha J, Vijayalakshmi S (2014) Waste water treatment using vermifilteration technique at institutional level. Int J Adv Sci Tech Res 1(4):581–590Google Scholar
  31. Liang X, Dijk VMP (2012) Cost benefit analysis of centralized wastewater reuse systems. J Benefit-Cost Anal 3(3):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liguori B, Hansen SF, Baun A, Jensen KA (2016) Control banding tools for occupational exposure assessment of nanomaterials—Ready for use in a regulatory context? NanoImpact 2:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Longe EO, Omole DO (2008) Analysis of pollution status of River Illo, Ota, Nigeria. Environmentalist 28:451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ma XC, Xue X, Gonzalez-Mejia A, Garland J, Cashdollar J (2015) Sustainability (Switzerland) 7(9):12071–12105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maroneze MM, Zepka LQ, Vieira JG, Queiroz MI, Eduardo JL (2014) De-oxygenation rate, re-aeration and potential for self-purification of a small tropical urban stream. An Inter J Appl Sci 9(3):445–458Google Scholar
  36. Nas SS, Nas E (2009) Water quality modeling and dissolved oxygen balance in streams: a point source Streeter-Phelps application in the case of the Harsit stream. Clean—Soil, Air and Water 37(1):67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nolte TM, Hartmann NB, Kleijn JM, Garnæs J, van de Meent D, Hendriks AJ, Baun A (2017) The toxicity of plastic nanoparticles to green algae as influenced by surface modification, medium hardness and cellular adsorption. Aquat Toxicol 183:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Omole DO, Adewumi IK, Longe EO, Ogbiye AS (2012) Study of auto purification capacity of River Atuwara in Nigeria. Int J Eng Technol 2(2):229–235Google Scholar
  39. Pak G, Lee J, Kim H, Yoo Yun Z, Choi S, Yoon J (2010) Applicability of Aquacycle model to urban water cycle analysis. Des Water Treat 19(1–3):80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pantelakis D, Thomas Z, Baltas E (2013) Hydraulic models for the simulation of flow routing. Global NEST J 15(3):315–323Google Scholar
  41. Pathirana A, Maheng MD, Brdjanovic D (2011) A two-dimensional pollutant transport model for sewer overflow impact simulation. In: International conference on urban drainage, pp 10–15Google Scholar
  42. Peng H, Yao W, Huang P (2010) Application of modified Streeter-Phelps model and COD changing model to Xiangxi River in Three Gorges Reservoir Area. In: International conference on bioinformatics and biomedical engineering, ICBBE. University Yichang, China, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  43. Qian SS (1999) ESR 202 Applied environmental studies: preparation for problem solving. Environmental Sciences and Resources Portland, pp 1–65Google Scholar
  44. Raymond PA, Zappa CJ, Butman D, Bott TL, Potter J, Mulholland P, Laursen AE, McDowell WH, Newbold D (2012) Scaling the gas transfer velocity and hydraulic geometry in streams and small rivers. Limnol Oceanogr: Fluids & Environ 2:41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simunek J, Jacques D, Langergraber G, Bradford SA, Sejna M, Genuchten VM (2013) Numerical modeling of contaminant transport using HYDRUS and its specialized modules. J Indian Inst Sci 93(2):265–284Google Scholar
  46. Singh O, Sharma MK (2015) Measurement of dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand for The Hindon River, India. Indian Water Res Soc 35(1):42–50Google Scholar
  47. Sinha D, Aggarwal S, Tyagi B (2014) Analysis of DO sag for multiple point sources. Math Theory Model 4(3):1–7Google Scholar
  48. Skaggs RW, Youssef MA, Chescheir GM (2012) Drainmod: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans ASABE 551(4):1509–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sudarsan JS, Roy RL, Baskar G, Deeptha VT, Nithiyanantham S (2015) Domestic wastewater treatment performance using constructed wetland. Sust Water Res Manage 1(2):89–96Google Scholar
  50. Teh XY, Poh PE, Gouwanda D, Chong MN (2015) Decentralized light greywater treatment using aerobic digestion and hydrogen peroxide disinfection for non-potable reuse. J Cleaner Prod 99:305–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tsakiris G, Alexakis D (2012) Water quality models: an overview. Eur Water 37:33–46Google Scholar
  52. Ugbebor JN, Agunwamba JC, Amah VE (2012) Determination of reaeration Coefficient K2 for polluted stream as a function of depth, hydraulic radius, temperature and velocity. Niger J Technol 31(2):174–180Google Scholar
  53. Uzoigwe LO, Maduakolam SC, Samuel C (2015) Development of oxygen sag curve: a case study of Otamiri River, Imo State. Sci Eng Appl Sci 12(2):133–150Google Scholar
  54. Wang Q, Li S, Jia P, Qi C, Ding F (2013) A review of surface water quality models. Sci World J 1–7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Athirah
    • 1
  • Adel Ali Saeed Al-Gheethi
    • 1
  • Efaq Ali Noman
    • 2
    • 3
  • Radin Maya Saphira Radin Mohamed
    • 1
  • Amir Hashim Mohd Kassim
    • 1
  1. 1.Micro-Pollutant Research Centre (MPRC), Department of Water and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM)Parit Raja, Batu PahatMalaysia
  2. 2.Faculty of Applied Sciences and Technology (FAST)Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM)PagohMalaysia
  3. 3.Department of Applied Microbiology, Faculty Applied SciencesTaiz UniversityTaizYemen

Personalised recommendations