Desalination and Water Treatment (2014) 1–13

www.deswater.com

doi: 10.1080/19443994.2014.924036

Effect of coagulant in greywater treatment for reuse: selection of optimal

coagulation condition using Analytic Hierarchy Process

Dilip M. Ghaitidak*, Kunwar D. Yadav

Department of Civil Engineering, SV National Institute of Technology (SVNIT), Surat 395007, India, Tel. +91 8511084370;
email: dmghaitidak@gmail.com (D.M. Ghaitidak)
Received 19 March 2014; Accepted 3 May 2014

ABSTRACT

The objective of the present study was to (i) examine the effect of the coagulants on
greywater (GW) characteristics under variable pH conditions, (ii) assess the potential of
treated GW for reuse, and (iii) select optimal coagulation condition (pH and optimum dose)
using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The effect of coagulants (alum and lime) was stud-
ied under four different pH conditions (8.5, 7.5, 6.5 and 5.5). Multiple linear regression
models were built with optimum coagulant dose (OD) vs. pH, turbidity removal and alka-
linity consumed. R2 values ranged from 0.771 to 0.852 in case of alum and from 0.778 to
0.949 in lime treatment. In alum treatment, turbidity removal was above 88%, biochemical
oxygen demand removal was in the range 53–77%, and Escherichia coli removal was 95–99%
under the pH conditions examined. It was observed that alum-treated GW satisfied most of
the reuse standards for the discharge of effluents into land for irrigation and industrial cool-
ing in India. Total eight alternatives were ranked using AHP, considering nine criteria/sub-
criteria. Using AHP, the optimal alternative selected was alum treatment at pH 5.5 with OD
204 mg/L and the worst was lime treatment at pH 8.5.

Keywords: Greywater reuse; Coagulant; Jar test; Analytic Hierarchy Process; Ranking

1. Introduction level and reducing load on wastewater treatment

plant. GW is not suitable for direct use, but can be
Greywater (GW) is a wastewater from kitchen,
useful for non-potable reuse such as irrigation, toilet
bath and laundry, excluding wastewater from toilets.
flushing and ground water recharge [2,4].
GW from bathroom, showers, tubs and clothes wash-
The finely dispersed particles (colloids) in the
ing machines sources is termed as light greywater
wastewater bear negative electric charges which repel
(LGW) [1,2]. In order to reduce the gap between water
them from each other. Therefore, they remain in a sta-
availability and water demand, there is a need of
ble equilibrium which ultimately retards their settling
wastewater reuse after proper treatment. In a house-
process. Coagulants, usually bears a positive charge
hold, the proportion of GW flow is around 50–80% of
and can neutralize the negative charge on the colloids.
the total wastewater flow [3]. Hence, GW reuse can be
Thus, coagulation/flocculation process involves charge
an effective measure for saving water on the domestic
neutralisation, and floc formation leading to rapid set-
tling of the colloidal and suspended impurities.
*Corresponding author.

1944-3994/1944-3986 Ó 2014 Balaban Desalination Publications. All rights reserved.

2 D.M. Ghaitidak and K.D. Yadav / Desalination and Water Treatment

Though the alum and lime have been used in alum and lime is, yet, a point of research. Table 1 pre-
domestic wastewater treatment, the investigations par- sents summary of reported research on GW treatment
ticularly on GW by using those are quite limited [5,6]. using alum and lime. The pH of water plays an
GW differs significantly from domestic wastewater in important role in deciding the amount of coagulant
biodegradability, nutrient content, organic matter and required [9]. There was hardly any study on GW eval-
in many more characteristics [7,8]. Therefore, the uating optimum alum dosage. No study was reported
research findings on domestic wastewater may not be on GW evaluating optimum lime dosage under vari-
applicable to GW. Hence, investigation on GW using able pH conditions. Moreover, most of the studies lack

Table 1
Summary of reported research on greywater treatment using alum and lime

Reference Main features Main conclusions Remarks

Pidou et al. [7] Tested bath, shower, hand Useful for treatment of low organic Could not satisfy
basin greywater strength GW referred reuse standards
Bench scale study Useful for less stringent standards for
reuse
pH adjusted to chosen value
(4.5, 6 and 7) after dosing the
alum
Treatment using coagulation
and magnetic ion exchange
resin
Skudi et al. Tested bath, kitchen, laundry Concentrations of Fe, Mn, Ca, Mg, Pb and Alum dose was not
[12] greywater Hg complied with the set standards for optimised
potable water of the country
Bench scale study Economic evaluation
was not reported
Treatment comprised alum Effect of coagulation
coagulation followed by sand was not separated
filtration
Filtrate pH was adjusted Alum dose used was
between 6.5 and 8.5 very high
Kariuki et al. Tested kitchen, laundry, hand GW treatment system could produce Alum dose was not
[13] basin greywater effluent complying with pathogen limit in optimised
the referred standards
Pilot scale study Economic evaluation
was not reported
Treatment using alum Important reuse
coagulation followed by parameters like BOD5,
disinfection TSS were not monitored
Kar and Gupta Tested bath, laundry, kitchen, The study concluded that the cost of the Lime/alum doses given
[14] greywater system may be recovered in two years were not reported
Bench scale study Method of coagulation
not reported
Treatment using lime and alum No reference to any
coagulation followed by specific reuse standards
filtration and disinfection
Antonopoulou Tested shower, hand basin, Alum resulted higher TSS and COD Alum dose was not
et al. [15] kitchen greywater removal compared to ferric chloride optimised
Bench scale study Cost aspect was not
reported
Treatment using alum No reference to any
coagulation followed by sand specific reuse standards
filtration
Note: BOD5, five day biochemical oxygen demand; TSS, total suspended solids; COD, chemical oxygen demand.
 D.M. Ghaitidak and K.D. Yadav / Desalination and Water Treatment 3

of monitoring of a complete set of reuse parameters in each jar test. H2SO4 (1 N) or NaOH (1 N) was used
for a particular reuse according to national or interna- to adjust the pH of raw GW. For each sample four jar
tional standards. tests were conducted by adjusting pH to 8.5, 7.5, 6.5
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a well- and 5.5 and optimum doses were obtained. The pH
known multi-criteria decision-making method that adjusted raw GW was then subjected to jar test using
has been widely applied to solve problems in many a coagulant (alum or lime). A rapid mixing at 120 rpm
fields [10]. At present, applications of multi-attribute for 90 s and a slow mixing at 30 rpm for 15 min were
decision-making to GW investigations are quite lim- adopted. Flocculated GW was settled for next 45 min.
ited. Chen et al. [11] applied preference ranking The coagulant dose corresponding to the least turbid-
organization method for enrichment evaluation for ity was considered as optimum coagulant dose (OD).
selecting recycling alternative in a household laun- Next, the supernatants from the jar corresponding to
dry in Sydney. No study using AHP, on the man- the optimum doses were analysed. The treated sam-
agement of LGW is reported so far. The present ples, corresponding to initial adjusted raw GW of pH
study gives a step-by-step procedure to use AHP in equal to 8.5, 7.5, 6.5 and 5.5 were referred as A8.5,
selecting the optimal coagulation condition (pH and A7.5, A6.5 and A5.5, respectively, in case of alum.
optimum dose) using AHP. Similarly, those were referred as L8.5, L7.5, L6.5 and
In view of the above, the objective of the present L5.5, respectively, in case of lime. All the parameters
study was to (i) examine the effect of the coagulants were analysed as per standard methods [16]. Reagent/
on GW characteristics under variable pH conditions, laboratory grade chemicals were used in the study.
(ii) assess the potential of treated GW for reuse, and
(iii) select optimal coagulation condition (pH and opti-
mum dose) using AHP. The effects of two coagulants 2.3. Reuse standards referred
(alum, and lime) were studied under four different The GW treatment was aimed to reuse the treated
pH conditions (pH 8.5, 7.5, 6.5 and 5.5). GW parame- GW for non-potable purpose. The target reuse was
ters were monitored at optimum coagulant dosages irrigation, construction and industrial cooling. There-
for targeting reuse in restricted access area irrigation, fore, the reuse standards related to the target reuse
construction, and industrial cooling. The results were were referred. The reuse standards referred in the
analysed using descriptive and multivariate statistics. present study are presented in Table 2.

2. Materials and methods 2.4. Statistical analysis

2.1. Greywater The results were analysed using descriptive and
Real GW was used in the study. GW was collected multivariate statistics using Excel 2007 and SYSTAT
from a students’ hostel of capacity 400 located at (Sigmaplot 10). A paired t-test (paired two sample for
Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology means) was performed on parameters monitored
(SVNIT), Surat, India. The sources of GW were hand- before and after the treatment. This test was used in
basins, showers and bathrooms. GW was collected in the present study because: (1) parameters before and
a collection tank (CT). Samples were collected at 10 after the treatments were compared, and they were of
am in the morning. Around 60-L of GW was taken the same size, (2) parameters compared were a contin-
from CT for the experimental purpose and the remain- uous variable. The null (H0) and alternate hypothesis
ing GW was discarded. The CT was washed each time (H1) framed in t-test were as Eqs. (1) and (2).
before use with clean potable water to avoid any
carry-over of contaminants. The experiments were H0 : lR
lT ¼ 0 (1)
started immediately after the collection of GW. The
study was carried out for six months during Decem- H1 : lR
lT 6¼ 0 (2)
ber 2012–June 2013.
where μR and μT are mean concentrations of parame-
ters in raw and treated GW, respectively.
2.2. Experiments
The level of test confidence was 95%. The p-value
Alum (Al2(SO4)3·18H2O), and lime (Ca(OH)2) were < 0.05 is evidence to reject H0, which means, the
used in the study. A six-paddle stirrer jar test appara- mean concentration of parameters differs significantly
tus (with rotating blades) was used in GW coagula- after treatment (i.e. μR ≠ μT). Whereas, p-value > 0.05
tion/flocculation. Six jars, capacity 1 L each, were used indicates failure to reject H0, which means mean
4 D.M. Ghaitidak and K.D. Yadav / Desalination and Water Treatment

Table 2
Wastewater/greywater reuse standards referred in the present study

Reference Type of reuse Reuse standards

CPCB [17] Discharge into land for irrigation pH 5.5–9.0, TSS < 200 mg/L, BOD5 < 100 mg/L, oil & grease
(O&G) < 10 mg/L, arsenic < 0.2 mg/L
USEPA Restricted access area irrigation—areas pH 6–9, TSS ≤ 30 mg/L, BOD5 ≤ 30 mg/L, Faecal coliforms
[18] where public access is prohibited (FC) ≤ 200 MPN/100 mL, chlorine = 1 mg/L residual
(minimum)
Construction—soil compaction, dust control, TSS ≤ 30 mg/L, BOD5 ≤ 30 mg/L, FC<200 MPN/100 mL,
washing aggregate, making concrete Cl2 = 1 mg/L residual (minimum)
WHO [1] Unrestricted irrigation of crops Escherichia coli (EC) < 1,000 cfu/100 mL (relaxed to 10,000 for
high growing leaf crops or drip irrigation)
CPCB [19] Irrigation and industrial cooling Electrical conductivity (EC25) < 2,250 μS/cm, sodium
adsorption ratio (SAR) < 26, boron < 2 mg/L

concentration of parameters does not differ signifi- different. We cannot compare attributes with different
cantly after treatment (i.e. μR = μT). dimensions. Therefore, attributes are made dimension-
Multiple linear regression models were built with less by the process of normalisation [20]. The quantita-
OD vs. pH, turbidity removal and alkalinity tive data is normalised as mentioned in Section 4.3.
consumed. The weights of the attributes (criteria) are determined
by forming a pairwise comparison matrix of relative
importance (see Sections 4.4 and 4.5). Alternatives are
2.5. Analytic Hierarchy Process ranked using weights of the attributes and normalised
AHP is designed to reflect the way people actually data (see Section 4.6).
think. It can handle qualitative as well as quantitative The geometric mean method of AHP was used in
values. The qualitative values are converted to abso- the present study. This method is widely used due to
lute number using an appropriate scale of conversion. its simplicity, easy way of determining maximum
The dimensions of different attributes are usually eigenvalue and reduction in inconsistency in the

Table 3
The comparison scale used in AHP and corresponding linguistic variables used

Comparison scale in AHP [21, 22]

Intensity of Linguistic
importance Definition Explanation variables
1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to one objective Extremely
low
2 Intensity of importance (II) – Very low
between 1 and 3
3 Moderate importance of Judgment slightly favour one activity over another Low
one over another
4 II Between 3 and 5 – Below
average
5 Strong importance Judgment strongly favour one activity over another Average
6 II Between 5 and 7 – Above
average
7 Very strong importance An activity is strongly favoured and its dominance is High
demonstrated in practice
8 II Between 7 and 9 – Very high
9 Extreme importance The evidence favouring one activity over another is of the Extremely
highest possible order of affirmation high
Note: Reciprocals of the above nonzero—if activity i has one of the above nonzero numbers assigned to it when compared with activity j,
then j has the reciprocal value when compared with i.
 D.M. Ghaitidak and K.D. Yadav / Desalination and Water Treatment 5

judgments [20,21]. An expert opinion survey was con- laundry and washbasin GW [25]. Wastewater with
ducted for deciding the intensity of the importance of COD/BOD5 ratio above two is not easily treatable by
the attributes. Table 3 presents the comparison scale biological means. Moreover, a biological process needs
used in AHP and corresponding linguistic variables a minimum BOD5:N:P ratio of 100:5:1 for complete
used in surveying. The linguistic variables were con- BOD5 removal under aerobic conditions [8]. GW does
verted to the absolute numbers. The average of the not include urine; therefore, it is expected to be defi-
responses of all the experts was considered in forming cient in N. Similarly, most of the phosphorus origi-
the relative importance matrix. nates from detergents used in washing and will only
be present if the laundry GW is included. Biological
treatment can be used efficiently for collective waste-
3. Results and discussion water treatment under supervision of trained staff, but
The raw GW characteristics analysed in the present it would be difficult to treat GW in single households
study are presented in Table 4. Concentrations of the where the inhabitants have no specific skills to treat
parameters monitored were within the range of litera- wastewater [24]. Thus, the high COD/BOD5 ratio and
ture cited. Arsenic, one of the priority pollutants, was nutrient deficiency of the GW supports the case of
included in the study. Only Arsenic was included in physicochemical treatment in the present study.
the study due to availability of prescribed reuse stan-
dards for it (see Table 2). In the present study, BOD5
3.1. Effect of coagulant dose on physical and chemical
of raw GW ranged from 40 to 240 mg/L and COD
characteristics
ranged from 126 to 460 mg/L. Similarly, COD/BOD5
ratio varied from 1.71 to 3.15 (2.2 ± 0.38). In the litera- The mean optimum alum dosage was observed as
ture cited, COD/BOD5 ratio was in the range of 1.52– 268 ± 89, 252 ± 82, 237 ± 67 and 204 ± 75 mg/L at pH 8.5,
2.8 for a shower, 1.33–2.9 for bath, and 1.88–3.6 for 7.5, 6.5 and 5.5, respectively. These alum dosages, in
washbasin GW [23,24]. It was 2.33 for combined bath, terms of aluminium were 12.8 ± 4.2, 12 ± 3.9, 11.3 ± 3.2,

Table 4
Raw Greywater characteristics

Present study Literature data

Parameters Unit n Range Avg. ± SD Israel [23,26] Canada [27]
GW sources B, S, W B, S, W B, S, W S, Wm
pH – 26 7.15–8.34 7.82 ± 0.34 7−7.43 6.7–7.6
Turbidity NTU 26 32–145 80.3 ± 28.2
Temperature ˚C 26 23.1–30.8 27 ± 2.3
EC25 μS/cm 26 536–978 648 ± 124 1,130
Total solids (TS) mg/L 20 464–805 610 ± 99 777−1,090 313–543
Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/L 20 308–620 401 ± 71
Total suspended solids (TSS) mg/L 20 121–322 209 ± 60 78–303
Oil and grease mg/L 13 22–106 77.7 ± 22 7.2−164
Alkalinity mg/L 23 180–420 289 ± 52
Ammonia nitrogen (NH3–N) mg/L 12 0.8–5.6 2.4 ± 1.4 0.39−1.2 1.2–6.2
Phosphates (PO4–P) mg/L 8 0.28–1.12 0.64 ± 0.31 4.56–15
BOD5 mg/L 21 40–240 153 ± 58 44–424
Chemical oxygen demand mg/L 21 126–460 321 ± 94 230–645 278–435
Total coliforms (TC) MPN/100 mL 13 5E4–9E6 1.9E6 ± 2.7E6
Faecal coliforms MPN/100 mL 13 1.4E3–1.7E5 5.8E4 ± 6.7E4 3.5E3–4E6 4.7E4–8.3E5
Escherichia coli cfu/100 mL 13 205–8,183 2,558 ± 2,498
Calcium (Ca) mg/L 8 1.92–46.87 16.46 ± 16.19 30–44
Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 8 14.78–30.22 22.19 ± 5.43 8–9.9
Sodium (Na) mg/L 8 63.95–117.32 84.96 ± 17.79 112−151 20–27
SAR – 8 2.5–3.5 2.88 ± 0.43 3.9–6.1
Boron mg/L 8 0.06–0.31 0.14 ± 0.08 0.35−0.44
Arsenic (As) mg/L 8 <0.01 <0.01
Note: n, number of samples; Avg., average; SD, standard deviation; B, bath; S, shower; W, washbasin; Wm, washing machine.
6 D.M. Ghaitidak and K.D. Yadav / Desalination and Water Treatment

and 9.7 ± 3.6 mg-Al/L, respectively. In similar studies treatment residual turbidity decreased with increase in
on LGW, Pidou et al. [7] observed an optimum alum pH.
dose of 32, 28 and 24 mg-Al/L for pH values of 7, 6 and In alum-treated GW, mean pH (except A5.5) levels
4.5, respectively. Fig. 1 shows the effect of pH on opti- satisfied the USEPA [18] standards for restricted
mum coagulant dosage. In the present study, OD was access area irrigation and CPCB [17] standards for dis-
also reduced as per decrease in pH. The average opti- charge into land for irrigation. Whereas, in lime treat-
mum lime dosage was observed as 249 ± 100, 254 ± 114, ment; pH of L5.5 satisfied both the above reuse
222 ± 130 and 218 ± 126 mg/L for GW at pH 8.5, 7.5, 6.5 standards.
and 5.5, respectively. The effect of coagulant dose on turbidity is shown
The effect of coagulant dose on pH is shown in in Fig. 3. In alum treatment, mean turbidity level of
Fig. 2. It was observed that, pH of alum-treated GW 74.8 NTU was reduced to 8.7 (removal 88%), 8.4
was dropped as alum dose increased. When alum is (removal 89%), 8.1 (removal 89%), 5.8 NTU (removal
added in water, carbon dioxide gas is liberated. This 92%) at pH 8.5, 7.5, 6.5 and 5.5, respectively. Pidou
CO2 then reacts with water producing carbonic acid et al. [7] reported turbidity removal from 46.6 to 4.28
(H2CO3). Hence, the pH of alum-coagulated GW NTU (removal 91%) in investigating shower GW using
drops. Lime, when added to water, increases alkalinity alum (at pH 4.5 and alum dose 24 mg-Al/L). In the
which results in an increase in ions (some of which present study, a similar turbidity removal was
are positively charged). The positively charged ions obtained at an even smaller dose (9.7–12.75 mg-Al/L),
attract the colloidal particles leading to floc formation probably due to GW characteristics.
[28]. During alum treatment, mean residual turbidity In the present study, a good correlation of the
was decreased with a decrease in pH; whereas, in lime coagulant dose was observed with GW pH, turbidity

(a) 450 (b) 450

400 400
Optimum dose (mg/L)
Optimum dose (mg/L)

350 350
300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100

50 50

0 0
5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5
pH pH

Fig. 1. Effect of pH on OD (a) alum, (b) lime.

(a) 13 (b) 13 After dosing

12 After dosing 12 Before dosing
Before dosing
11 11
10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
pH

pH

6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
75 67 52±82 89 126 130 54±114 100
204± 237± 2 268± 218± 222± 2 249±
Optimum Alum dose (mg/L) Optimum Lime dose (mg/L)

Fig. 2. Effect of coagulant dose on pH (a) alum, (b) lime.

 D.M. Ghaitidak and K.D. Yadav / Desalination and Water Treatment 7

(a) 120 (b) 120

Raw GW
100 100

Turbidity (NTU)
80 80
Turbidity (NTU)

60 60
L5.5
Raw GW L6.5 L7.5
40 40

20 A6.5 A8.5 20 L8.5

0 0
A5.5 A7.5

75 37±67 52±82
268±
89 126 22±130 54±114 100
0 204± 2 2 0 218± 2 2 249±
Optimum Alum Dose (mg/L) Optimum Lime Dose (mg/L)

Fig. 3. Effect of coagulant dose on turbidity (a) alum, (b) lime.

removal and alkalinity consumed. Hence, these The “Multiple R” is the multiple correlation coeffi-
parameters were considered in developing a multiple cient(varies from −1 to +1) and it measures the
regression model. Table 5 indicates coefficients (Y0, c1, strength of association among the variables in the
c2 and c3) obtained in regression analysis correspond- model. R = −1 indicates perfect negative correlation,
ing to Eq. (3) in different coagulation conditions R = +1 is perfect positive correlation, and R = 0 indi-
examined. cates no correlation. In the present study, R varied
from 0.878 to 0.923 in case of alum; and, from 0.882 to
0.974 in the case of lime, indicating a good association
Y ¼ Y0 þ c1  X1 þ c2  X2 þ c3  X3 (3)
among the variables in the model. The parameter R2 is
called as the coefficient of multiple determination of a
regression model. R2 takes values from 0 to 1. The
where Y = optimum coagulant dose (as mg-Al/L for value closer to 1 indicates a stronger prediction of
alum; or mg/L for lime); Y0 = constant; X1 = pH of response variable (RV) by predictors; and R2 equal to
treated GW; X2 = turbidity removal (%); X3 = alkalinity 0 indicates no relationship between the predictor vari-
consumed (%). The above equation can be helpful for ables and RV [29]. In the present study, R2 was above
taking initial trial in the jar test (i.e. adding coagulant 0.771 which indicates a good efficiency of regression
dose) by targeting percent turbidity removal and alka- models built. Significance F is the p-value indicating
linity consumption for a particular raw GW pH. The the significance of the regression. In the present study,
above equation was applicable in temperature range the level of confidence used in the regression was
from 23 to 31˚C. This model was not applicable at pH 95%; therefore, the p-value < 0.05 indicates that regres-
5.5 and 8.5 in lime treatment. sion was significant at the 5% level of significance.

Table 5
Coefficients of the model obtained in regression analysis

Alum treatment Lime treatment

Coefficients
A8.5 A7.5 A6.5 A5.5 L7.5 L6.5
Y0 99.47 28.81 91.29 42.92 −486.07 577.71
c1 −11.576 −5.315 −11.860 −6.920 52.84 76.761
c2 −0.077 0.194 −0.002 0.089 2.66 0.426
c3 −0.060 0.021 −0.120 −0.101 0.00 1.007
Multiple R 0.917 0.893 0.878 0.923 0.882 0.974
R2 0.843 0.798 0.771 0.852 0.778 0.949
Significance F 0.0030 0.0080 0.0120 0.0027 0.0051 ~0.00
Note: A8.5, A7.5, A6.5, and A5.5 indicate alum coagulation at pH 8.5, 7.5, 6.5 and 5.5, respectively. Similarly, L7.5 and L6.5 indicate lime
coagulation at pH 7.5 and 6.5, respectively.
8 D.M. Ghaitidak and K.D. Yadav / Desalination and Water Treatment

Concentration of total suspended solids (TSS) in 24 mg-Al/L). Antonopoulou et al. [15] reported 80%
alum-treated GW was reduced from 205 to 46 COD removal at 800 mg/L alum dose. In the present
(removal 78%), 35 (removal 83%), 36 (removal 82%) study, BOD5 removal was slightly less and COD
and 49 mg/L (removal 76%) at pH 8.5, 7.5, 6.5 and 5.5, removal was similar to the literature cited, but at a
respectively; and TSS of lime-treated GW was reduced comparatively lower alum dosage (i.e. 204–268 mg/L).
from 215 to 41 (removal 81%), 61 (removal 72%), 67 In lime treatment, BOD5 removal was 41 ± 23, 63 ± 24,
(removal 69%) and 68 mg/L (removal 68%) at pH 8.5, 57 ± 22 and 53 ± 26%; and COD removal was 41 ± 25,
7.5, 6.5 and L5.5, respectively. Antonopoulou et al. 63 ± 24, 60 ± 18 and 58 ± 18% at pH 8.5, 7.5, 6.5 and
[15] reported 88% TSS removal at 800 mg/L alum dose 5.5, respectively. BOD5 concentrations after each treat-
(without previous pH adjustment) in the investigation ment varied significantly from raw GW concentrations
of GW from shower, hand basin and kitchen sink. In under all the four pH conditions (p < 0.05). Mean
the present study, TSS removal of around 82% was BOD5 concentrations complied reuse standards for
obtained at pH 7.5 and 6.5, at alum dose of 252 and discharge into land for irrigation in India [17] in both
237 mg/L, respectively; which is nearly 30% of alum the coagulants tested and under all the four pH
dose as reported in the referred literature. This indi- conditions.
cates that the variation in pH and evaluating optimum Oil and grease (O&G) concentrations were above
dosage can reduce a coagulant demand significantly 10 mg/L. Pre-treatment of GW (e.g. providing oil and
for similar removal efficiency. grease trap in GW collection stream) and coagulation/
In alum treatment, both charge neutralization and flocculation may reduce O&G concentrations to fit for
sweep flocculation mechanisms were effective in TSS reuse. An arsenic concentration in raw GW was
removal at pH 7.5 and 6.5. Whereas, at pH 5.5, charge <0.01 mg/L and boron was 0.14 ± 0.08 mg/L. Mean
neutralization may be dominating; and at pH 8.5, due EC25 was observed between 724 and 765 μS/cm after
to high pH and corresponding high alum dose, sweep alum treatment and that of in lime treatment was
flocculation may be dominating [30]. A rise in pH from 795–835 μS/cm. Arsenic, boron and EC25 were satisfy-
4 to 6 causes eight times reduction in charge neutralis- ing CPCB [19] reuse standards for irrigation and
ing capacity of alum [31]. Therefore, at higher pH there industrial cooling.
is a little scope for solids removal through adsorption During alum treatment, the average residual levels
and inter particle bridging. Though the rise in pH of the parameters TSS and BOD5 were low at pH 7.5.
reduces neutralising capacity and affects the TSS Here, pre-adjusted pH 7.5 was resulted to 6.5 ± 0.4
removal, a presence of alkalinity is required to form the after treatment. Sharp [31] observed optimum dose of
aluminium hydroxide flocs. Around 0.45 mg/L aluminium-based salts under acidic conditions (pH 5–
alkalinity is required per 1 mg/L of alum for its 6) in removal of natural organic matter. Antonopoulou
complete hydrolysis into aluminium hydroxide [8]. In et al. [15] did not observe any effect of pH on removal
lime treatment, the pH of the treated samples was very of parameters (TSS, COD). According to the present
high; therefore, the sweep flocculation might be the study, pH 6.52 ± 0.4 may be an optimum pH for treat-
dominating mechanism for solids removal. ing LGW using alum.
Median TSS concentrations in alum-treated GW
were 29, 22, 23 and 22 mg/L at pH 8.5, 7.5, 6.5 and
3.2. Effect of coagulant dose on microbiological
5.5, respectively. Hence, alum treatment satisfied
characteristics
USEPA [18] and CPCB [17] reuse standards referred.
Lime-treated GW satisfied CPCB [17] reuse standards In alum treatment, mean TC count of 5.86E6
for discharge into land for irrigation. TSS removal MPN/100 mL was reduced to 1.3E5 (removal > 98%),
after treatment was significant under all the four pH 4.4E4 (removal >99%), 3.1E3 (removal >99%) and
conditions for both the coagulants (p < 0.05). 1.0E3 MPN/100 mL (removal >99%); mean FC count
Mean BOD5 concentration in alum-treated GW was of 3.7E4 MPN/100 mL was reduced to 183, 177, 124
reduced from 153 to 72 (removal 53%), 35 (removal and 91 MPN/100 mL; and mean EC count of 2,815
77%), 47 (removal 69%) and 55 mg/L (removal 64%,) cfu/100 mL was reduced to 135, 115, 94 and 29 cfu/
and mean COD was reduced from 318 to 136 (removal 100 mL at pH 8.5, 7.5, 6.5 and 5.5, respectively. Pidou
57%), 73 (removal 77%), 97 (removal 70%) and et al. [7] reported TC removal from 56,500 to <1 and
111 mg/L (removal 65%) at pH 8.5, 7.5, 6.5 and 5.5, EC from 6,490 to <1 (removal >99.9%), at pH 4.5 and
respectively. Pidou et al. [7] reported BOD5 removal optimum alum dose 24 mg-Al/L. Kariuki et al. [13]
from 205 to 23 mg/L (removal 88%), and COD observed no reduction in TC for the kitchen as well as
removal from 791 to 287 mg/L (removal 64%) in study laundry GW, using alum. In the present study, at pH
of shower GW (at pH 4.5 and optimum alum dose 6.5 and 5.5, the percentage removal of TC and FC was
 D.M. Ghaitidak and K.D. Yadav / Desalination and Water Treatment 9

observed close to that of Pidou et al. [7] even at a after treatment, the intrusion of GW to water sources
smaller dose of 11.26 ± 3.2 and 9.7 ± 3.5 mg-Al/L, at should be prevented to avoid any health consequences
pH 6.5 and 5.5, respectively. The removal might be that are likely to arise.
better due to an acidic condition rather than floc set-
tling, where treated GW pH of these samples was in
the range 5.58–6.47, and 4.04–5.43, respectively. 4. Ranking of alternatives using AHP
In the present study, in lime treatment, mean TC
4.1. Criteria and sub-criteria
count of 3.4E6 MPN/100 mL was reduced to 1.5E4,
2.3E4, 3.0E4 and 6.6E4; mean FC count of 8.1E4 MPN/ The hierarchy structure used in the present study
100 mL was reduced to 2,450, 3,835, 4,370 and 7,052 is shown in Fig. 4. Three main criteria (1) coagulant
MPN/100 mL; and mean EC count of 2,258 cfu/100 cost (CC), (2) compliance of treated GW with reuse
mL was reduced to 282, 473, 723 and 921 MPN/100 standards (CS), and (3) OD was selected in the study.
mL at pH 8.5, 7.5, 6.5 and 5.5, respectively. Kar and Criteria CS were further divided into sub-criteria
Gupta [14] observed some coliform destruction with which include the reuse parameters pH, turbidity
Ca(OH)2 treatment (coliform count and dosage were (TUR), TSS, BOD5, O&G, FC and EC.
not reported) of GW from bath, cloth washing and TS, TDS, NH3–N, and PO4–P were monitored but
kitchen. Further treatments of ultrafiltration, ultravio- not included in AHP due to the non-availability of
let and chlorination were required to make the lime- their limits in the referred reuse standards (see
treated effluent bacteria free. Table 2). Concentrations of boron and arsenic were
The paired t-test indicated significant differences very low in raw GW itself. Hence, those were not
in all the bacteriological (TC, FC and EC) counts, included in decision-making.
before and after the treatment under all the four pH
conditions at 5% level of significance (p < 0.05) for both
the coagulants tested. 4.2. GW reuse attributes and alternatives
FC counts in all the alum-treated samples were
Attributes and alternatives used in decision-making
within USEPA [18] limits and were safe for restricted
are presented in Table 6. CC was obtained from
access area irrigation and construction. Though the FC
enquiry in the nearby market. OD was the optimum
count complied with reuse standards; treated GW
coagulant dose observed in each pH condition. Col-
should be chlorinated to prevent regrowth of patho-
umns 3–9 indicate the sub-criteria of CS. Sub-criteria
gens and to maintain residual chlorine above 1 mg/L
pH was transformed to ΔpH as Eq. (4)
[18]. Both alum and lime treated GW satisfied WHO
[1] standards for unrestricted irrigation and were safe
from Escherichia coli point of view. However, even DpH ¼ jð7
pHÞj (4)

Fig. 4. Hierarchy structure of the model used in the present study.

10 D.M. Ghaitidak and K.D. Yadav / Desalination and Water Treatment

Table 6
Attributes and alternatives used in decision-making

Alternative CC OD ΔpH TUR TSS BOD5 O&G ΔFC ΔEC

(US$/T) (mg/L) (−) (%) (%) (%) (%) (log) (log)
A8.5 190 268 0.32 88.4 77.6 52.9 44.9 2.31 1.32
A7.5 190 252 0.48 88.8 82.9 77.1 55.1 2.32 1.39
A6.5 190 237 0.90 89.2 82.4 69.3 53.6 2.48 1.48
A5.5 190 204 2.17 92.2 76.1 64.1 52.2 2.61 1.99
L8.5 180 249 3.99 89.4 80.9 39.0 66.3 1.52 0.90
L7.5 180 254 3.24 80.5 71.6 63.6 77.7 1.33 0.68
L6.5 180 222 2.64 75.6 68.8 60.4 61.5 1.27 0.49
L5.5 180 218 1.83 68.0 68.4 57.8 56.8 1.06 0.39
Note: CC, coagulant cost; OD, optimum dose; ΔpH, deviation of pH from 7; TUR, turbidity; O&G, oil and grease; ΔFC, Faecal coliforms;
ΔEC, Escherichia coli; %, percentage removal; Log, log removal.

pH is a reuse standard which is preferred neither min- where ΔC = ΔFC or ΔEC; Ci = FC or EC count in raw
imum nor maximum. All the referred standards GW; Ce = FC or EC count in treated GW.
prescribe a range (see Table 2). Basically, pH of water
varies from 0 to 14. Water at pH 7 is neutral. There-
fore, Eq. (4) measures the deviation of pH from 7 4.3. Normalised data
(which gives is a positive value). With this transforma-
Table 7 presents normalised data of attributes
tion, the attribute pH was used as ΔpH and was an
presented in Table 6. Attributes CC, OD and ΔpH
attribute of minimisation.
were non-beneficial and minimised. Attributes TUR,
Percentage removal (%R) of parameters TUR, TSS,
TSS, BOD5, O&G, ΔFC and ΔEC were the removal
BOD5 and O&G were calculated using Eq. (5).
of the parameters; hence, those were beneficial attri-
butes and were the cases of maximisation. For
%R ¼ ðCR
CT Þ  100=CR (5) instance, minimum value of CC was 180 US$/T in
alternative L5.5–L8.5. This was normalised to 1; and
where CR = concentration of parameter in raw GW; other normalised values of CC were obtained by
CT = concentration of parameter in treated GW. dividing 180 by each CC (i.e. 180/190 = 0.95). Maxi-
Removal of parameters, FC and EC were calcu- mum turbidity removal was 92.2% in alternative
lated using Eq. (6) and were represented as ΔFC and A5.5. Therefore, all the turbidity values were
ΔEC, respectively. divided by 92.2 so that normalised turbidity value
at A5.5 will be 1 and that in other alternatives will
DC ¼ log10 ðCi Þ
log10 ðCe Þ (6) be <1 as shown in Table 7.

Table 7
Normalisation of the attributes in each alternative

Alternative CC OD ΔpH TUR TSS BOD5 O&G ΔFC ΔEC

A8.5 0.95 0.76 1 0.96 0.94 0.69 0.58 0.89 0.66
A7.5 0.95 0.81 0.67 0.96 1 1 0.71 0.89 0.70
A6.5 0.95 0.86 0.36 0.97 0.99 0.90 0.69 0.95 0.74
A5.5 0.95 1 0.15 1 0.92 0.83 0.67 1 1
L8.5 1 0.82 0.08 0.97 0.98 0.51 0.85 0.58 0.45
L7.5 1 0.80 0.10 0.87 0.86 0.82 1 0.51 0.34
L6.5 1 0.92 0.12 0.82 0.83 0.78 0.79 0.49 0.25
L5.5 1 0.94 0.17 0.74 0.83 0.75 0.73 0.41 0.20
 D.M. Ghaitidak and K.D. Yadav / Desalination and Water Treatment 11

4.4. Pairwise comparison matrix and criteria weights

CR ¼ CI =RI (8)
The pairwise comparisons find the relative
importance of the attributes which were rated by where RI is the random index which depends upon
the nine-point scale as shown in Table 3. Table 8 the size of relative importance matrix. Here, for main
shows the pairwise comparison matrix (Mat A1) and criteria CI = 0, RI3 = 0.52 [21], and CR = 0.
weights of the main criteria. Table 9 shows the Saaty [21] has suggested CR ≤ 0.10 for concluding
pairwise comparison matrix and local weights for the consistency of the pairwise matrix and validating
sub-criteria of CS. the weights. Here, CR < 0.10; hence, the matrix was
The consistency ratio determines the acceptance of consistent and the weights were valid.
the weights. This is one of the essential check in the
AHP method which aims to eliminate the possibility
of inconsistency in the criteria weights. The consis- 4.5. Global priority weight
tency of the judgment matrix is tested by calculation Since, there were no sub-criteria in CC and OD,
of the consistency index (CI) as Eq. (7). their global priority weights (GPWs) were as calcu-
lated in Table 8. Criteria CS has sub-criteria and needs
CI ¼ ðkmax
MÞ=ðM
1Þ (7) conversion of weights obtained in Table 9 by multiply-
ing their criteria weight (i.e. 0.45). Table 10 presents
all the attributes and their GPWs.
where λmax is the maximum eigenvalue of the
matrix and could be calculated from the average of
matrix A4 (see Table 8), and M is the order of the 4.6. Selection index
matrix (here, λmax = 3, and M = 3). In the present
Selection index (SI) is a measure of ranking the alter-
study, the exact values were used in comparing
natives. The higher the SI, the better is the alternative.
attributes in the relative importance matrix; therefore
SI was obtained by multiplying normalized data in
CI was zero.
Table 7 by GPW. Here alternative A5.5 has the highest
The consistency ratio (CR) was calculated as Eq. (8).
SI (Table 11). This means, treating GW using alum at

Table 8
Pairwise comparison matrix and weights for main criteria

Mat A1
Mat A2 Mat A3 Mat A4
CC OD CS Geometric mean Weights =Mat A1 × Mat A2 =Mat A3/Mat A2
CC 1 0.833 0.556 0.774 0.250 0.750 3
OD 1.2 1 0.667 0.928 0.300 0.900 3
CS 1.8 1.5 1 1.392 0.450 1.350 3
Note: Mat, matrix.

Table 9
Pairwise comparison matrix and local weights for sub-criteria of CS

Local
ΔpH TUR TSS BOD5 O&G ΔFC ΔEC weights
ΔpH 1.00 1.40 1.17 1.00 1.17 1.00 1.17 0.159
TUR 0.71 1.00 0.83 0.71 0.83 0.71 0.83 0.114
TSS 0.86 1.20 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.136
BOD5 1.00 1.40 1.17 1.00 1.17 1.00 1.17 0.159
O&G 0.86 1.20 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.136
ΔFC 1.00 1.40 1.17 1.00 1.17 1.00 1.17 0.159
ΔEC 0.86 1.20 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.136
Note: λmax = 7, M = 7, CI = 0, RI7 = 1.35 [21], CR = 0.
12 D.M. Ghaitidak and K.D. Yadav / Desalination and Water Treatment

Table 10
Attributes and corresponding GPWs

CS
Criteria CC OD
Sub-criteria – – ΔpH TUR TSS BOD5 O&G ΔFC ΔEC
GPW 0.250 0.300 0.072 0.051 0.061 0.072 0.061 0.072 0.061

Table 11
Selection index

Alternative A8.5 A7.5 A6.5 A5.5 L8.5 L7.5 L6.5 L5.5

Selection index 0.832 0.86 0.851 0.889 0.769 0.774 0.782 0.771
Rank 4 2 3 1 8 6 5 7

pH 5.5 with optimum dose 204 mg/L was the best alter- laundry, combined GW, etc.) and ranking optimal
native among all the alternatives examined. Alternative coagulation conditions using various multi-criteria
A7.5 has 2nd rank in SI; hence, it will be the next opti- decision-making tools will be a further scope for
mal option. Finally the selection string will be alterna- research.
tive A5.5-A7.5-A6.5-A8.5-L6.5-L7.5-L5.5-L8.5. Whereas,
considering only compliance to reuse standards the Acknowledgements
selection string was alternative A7.5-A8.5-A6.5-A5.5-
L7.5-L8.5-L6.5-L5.5. The authors are grateful to Indian Institute of
Technology (IIT) Bombay for the analysis of metals
and ground elements in their Sophisticated Analytical
5. Conclusions Instrument Facility (SAIF) laboratory. The authors
The pH of treated GW decreased with increase in thank the faculty members of Civil Engineering
alum dose; and the optimum alum dose decreased Department, SVNIT, Surat for providing their expert
with a decrease in GW pH. Whereas, the GW pH had opinion in forming the relative importance matrix.
a little influence on an optimum lime dosage under
the pH conditions tested. The study revealed that References
alum treated GW satisfied all the reuse standards
(except O&G) for the discharge of effluents into land [1] WHO, WHO Guidelines for the Safe use of Wastewater,
Excreta and Greywater, Excreta and Greywater use
for irrigation, and industrial cooling in India. In alum in Agriculture, vol. 4, World Health Organization,
treatment, removal of organic matter was observed Geneva, 2006.
highest at treated GW pH 6.52 ± 0.4; hence, it may be [2] A. Gross, D. Kaplan, K. Baker, Removal of chemical
considered as optimum pH for alum treatment. and microbiological contaminants from domestic grey-
Application of AHP in ranking alternatives water using a recycled vertical flow bioreactor (RVFB),
Ecol. Eng. 31 (2007) 107–114.
resulted in a selection string of alum coagulation at [3] A. Jamrah, A. Al-Omari, L. Al-Qasem, N. Abdel
pH 5.5, 7.5, 6.5, and 8.5 at optimum dose of 204, 252, Ghani, Assessment of availability and characteristics
237, and 268 mg/L indicating rank 1, 2, 3, and 4, of Greywater in Amman, Water Int. 31(2) (2006)
respectively. Further, lime coagulation at pH 6.5, 7.5, 210–220.
5.5, and 8.5 at optimum dose 222, 254, 218, and 249 [4] P.D. Jenssen, Design and Performance of Ecological
Sanitation Systems in Norway, Ecological Sanitation
mg/L indicate rank 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively. Con- Research, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm,
sidering only compliance to reuse standards, the selec- 2002.
tion string of alternatives was alum coagulation at pH [5] L. Abu Ghunmi, G. Zeeman, M. Fayyad, J.B. van Lier,
7.5, 8.5, 6.5, and 5.5; and lime coagulation at pH 7.5, Grey water treatment systems: A Review, Crit. Rev.
8.5, 6.5, and 5.5 indicating rank 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and Environ. Sci. Technol. 41 (2011) 657–698.
[6] D.M. Ghaitidak, K.D. Yadav, Characteristics and treat-
8, respectively. However, investigations on the effect ment of greywater—A review, Environ. Sci. Pollut.
of coagulants on different types of GW (viz. kitchen, Res. 20 (2013) 2795–2809.
 D.M. Ghaitidak and K.D. Yadav / Desalination and Water Treatment 13

[7] M. Pidou, L. Avery, T. Stephenson, P. Jeffrey, [19] CPCB, Guidelines for Water Quality Management,
S.A. Parsons, S. Liu, F.A. Memon, B. Jefferson, Chemi- Environmental Standards—Water Quality Criteria,
cal solutions for greywater recycling, Chemosphere 71 Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi, 2008.
(2008) 147–155. [20] R.V. Rao, Decision Making in the Manufacturing Envi-
[8] Metcalf, Eddy, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and ronment: Using Graph Theory and Fuzzy Multiple
Reuse, McGraw-Hill Series in Civil and Environmental Attribute Decision Making Methods, Springer-Verlag,
Engineering, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, 2003. London, 2007.
[9] D.J. Pernitsky, J.K. Edzwald, Selection of alum and poly- [21] T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning,
aluminum coagulants: Principles and applications, J. Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill,
Water Supply Res. Technol.—AQUA 55(2) (2006) 121–141. New York, NY, 1980.
[10] A. Ishizaka, A. Labib, Review of the main develop- [22] T.L. Saaty, How to make a decision: The analytic
ments in the analytic hierarchy process, Expert Syst. hierarchy process, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 48 (1990) 9–26.
Appl. 38 (2011) 14336–14345. [23] E. Friedler, Quality of individual domestic greywater
[11] Z. Chen, H.H. Ngo, W.S. Guo, A. Listowski, K. streams and its implication for on-site treatment
O’Halloran, M. Thompson, M. Muthukaruppan, and reuse possibilities, Environ. Technol. 25 (2004)
Multi-criteria analysis towards the new end use of 997–1008.
recycled water for household laundry: A case study in [24] B. Jefferson, A. Palmer, P. Jeffrey, R. Stuetz, S. Judd,
Sydney, Sci. Total Environ. 438 (2012) 59–65. Grey water characterisation and its impact on the
[12] J.B. Skudi, R. Wanjau, J. Murungi, C.O. Onindo, Alum selection and operation of technologies for urban
treated grey water for toilet flushing, mopping and reuse, Water Sci. Technol. 50(2) (2004) 157–164.
laundry work, Hydrol. Curr. Res. 2 (2011) 1–4. [25] L. Abu Ghunmi, G. Zeeman, M. Fayyad, J.B. van Lier,
[13] F.W. Kariuki, K. Kotut, V.G. Nganga, The potential of Grey water biodegradability, Biodegradation 22 (2011)
a low cost technology for the greywater treatment, 163–174.
The Open Environ. Eng. J. 4 (2011) 32–39. [26] M.J. Travis, A. Wiel-Shafran, N. Weisbrod, E. Adar, A.
[14] R. Kar, O. Gupta, Grey water treatment and recycling Gross, Greywater reuse for irrigation: Effect on soil
for use in household applications, Int. J. Eng. Res. properties, Sci. Total Environ. 408 (2010) 2501–2508.
Technol. 1(4) (2012) 1–10. [27] S. Finley, S. Barrington, D. Lyew, Reuse of domestic
[15] G. Antonopoulou, A. Kirkou, A.S. Stasinakis, Quanti- greywater for the irrigation of food crops, Water, Air,
tative and qualitative greywater characterization in and Soil Pollut. 199 (2009) 235–245.
Greek households and investigation of their treatment [28] Virginia’s Community Colleges, Coagulation and Floc-
using physicochemical methods, Sci. Total Environ. culation, http://water.me.vccs.edu/courses/env110/
454–455 (2013) 426–432. Lesson4_print.htm (consulted 12/3/2014).
[16] APHA, Standard Methods for the Examination of [29] K. Black, Business Statistics: For Contemporary Deci-
Water and Wastewater, 21st ed., American Public sion Making, 6th ed., John Wiley, Hoboken, 2010.
Health Association, Washington, DC, 2005. [30] D. Ghernaout, B. Ghernaout, Sweep flocculation as a
[17] CPCB, The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, second form of charge neutralisation—A review,
Schedule VI (Amended 1993), Central Pollution Con- Desalin. Water Treat. 44 (2012) 15–28.
trol Board, New Delhi, 1993. [31] E. Sharp, Natural organic matter coagulation, Dissertation,
[18] USEPA, Guidelines for Water Reuse, Report EPA/ Cranfield University, http://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/
625/R-04/108, United States Environmental Protection handle/1826/2224 (consulted 7/7/2013).
Agency, Washington, DC, 2004.