Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Front Envir Sci Eng    0, Vol. Issue () : 608-615    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-012-0468-x
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Analysis of Sydney’s recycled water schemes
Zhuo CHEN1, Huu Hao NGO1(), Wenshan GUO1, Xiaochang WANG2
1. Centre for Technology in Water and Wastewater, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney 2007, Australia; 2. School of Municipal and Environmental Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710055, China
 Download: PDF(149 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Recycled water provides a viable opportunity to partially supplement fresh water supplies as well as substantially alleviate environmental loads. Currently, thousands of recycled water schemes have been successfully conducted in a number of countries and Sydney is one of the leading cities, which has made massive effort to apply water reclamation, recycling and reuse. This study aims to make a comprehensive analysis of recycled water schemes in Sydney for a wide range of end uses such as landscape irrigation, industrial process uses and residential uses (e.g., golf course irrigation, industrial cooling water reuse, toilet flushing and clothes washing etc.). For each representative recycled water scheme, this study investigates the involved wastewater treatment technologies, the effluent quality compared with specified guideline values and public attitudes toward different end uses. Based on these obtained data, multi criteria analysis (MCA) in terms of risk, cost-benefit, environmental and social aspects can be performed. Consequently, from the analytical results, the good prospects of further expansion and exploration of current and new end uses were identified toward the integrated water planning and management. The analyses could also help decision makers in making a sound judgment for future recycled water projects.

Keywords recycled water schemes      end use      water quality      public attitudes      integrated water planning and management     
Corresponding Author(s): NGO Huu Hao,Email:h.ngo@uts.edu.au   
Issue Date: 01 August 2013
 Cite this article:   
Zhuo CHEN,Huu Hao NGO,Wenshan GUO, et al. Analysis of Sydney’s recycled water schemes[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 0, (): 608-615.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-012-0468-x
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y0/V/I/608
Fig.1  Outline of the proposed assessment framework for water recycling schemes
Impactscore
very much better+ 4
much better+ 3
moderately better+ 2
litter better+ 1
no change0
very much worse–4
much worse–3
moderately worse–2
little worse–1
Tab.1  Scoring system
options1) recycled water for washing machines2) recycled water for swimming pools3) level 1 water restriction on the use of recycled water
water quality requirementcurrent recycled water can be safely used without any quality improvementadditional advanced treatment (e.g., membrane technology) is required to recycle backwash watercurrent recycled water can be safely used. Level 1 restriction includes no use of sprinklers or other watering systems (excluding drip irrigation) as well as no hosing of hard surfaces and vehicles at any time
water quantitylaundry generally requires 20% of total water use. Given the total water use is 5.5 × 109 L·a-1 in Rouse Hill, this option can save around 1.1 × 109 L·a-1 of fresh waterthere are three community swimming pools in Rouse Hill. Given the water use of 8 × 104 L·d-1 for each one, this option can save around 8.76 × 107 L·a-1 of fresh waterdue to STP failure and maintenance, 15% of the water sold as recycled is clean drinking water. Level 1 restriction can result in 12% reduction of water demand, saving up to 2.64 × 108 L·a-1 of recycled water. This equals to save 3.96 × 107 L·a-1 of fresh water
riskthe risk is even lower than recycled water used for toilet flushing because of less exposurealthough the exposure to recycled water is high, the improved quality can sufficiently reduce the riskreduced recycled water consumption can reduce its exposure to human and the environment to some extent
environmental considerationsreduced effluent discharge and freshwater usereduced effluent discharge and freshwater usehigh water use efficiency and low ecological footprint
community attitudes60% of respondents in Sydney agree this option13% of 116 householders agree this optionpublic acceptability is low as the frequencies of washing hard surfaces, using sprinklers are significantly high in households
costs and benefitsneed to add extra taps in dual reticulation systems for washing machines. No additional costs on water quality improvementneed to add extra taps in dual reticulation systems for swimming pools. Additional costs on water quality improvement are requiredneither additional taps nor costs on water quality improvement are required
references[19][4,16][20]
Tab.2  Descriptions of three possible recycled water use options
key criteriaprimary weighting /%sub-criteriasub weighting /%scores of options
123
water supply20%water quantity and security of supply50%+ 4+ 3+ 2
water quality50%+ 3+ 4+ 3
risk related issues15%treatment technology50%+ 3+ 4+ 3
reliability, robustness and safety50%+ 3+ 4+ 3
Operability10%ease of operation55%0–10
system flexibility to upgrade and extend45%0+ 10
environmental considerations25%volume of waste generated20%+ 2+ 1+ 1
footprint of plant and infrastructure20%+ 1+ 1+ 2
energy use15%+ 1+ 1+ 2
greenhouse gas emission15%+ 2+ 1+ 1
impact on local ecology20%+ 1+ 1+ 1
impact on groundwater10%+ 1+ 10
social/community considerations15%aboriginal, cultural and non-cultural heritage15%000
aesthetics20%0+ 10
traffic disruption20%0–10
community/social acceptance25%+ 3+ 2–2
community education opportunities20%+ 4+ 3+ 1
costs and benefits15%capital cost50%–1–20
operating cost50%–2–10
total100%1.501.481.22
Tab.3  Summary of key and sub-criteria and weightings
Fig.2  Sensitivity analysis on the results of the three options
1 Al-Rifai J H, Gabelish C L, Sch?fer A I. Occurrence of pharmaceutically active and non-steroidal estrogenic compounds in three different wastewater recycling schemes in Australia. Chemosphere , 2007, 69(5): 803–815
doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.04.069 pmid:17583770
2 NSW Office of Water. 2010 Metropolitan Water Plan. 2010. Available online at: http://www.waterforlife.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/15275/2010_Metropolitan_Water_Plan. pdf (accessed August1, 2011)
3 Stenekes N, Colebatch H K, Waite T D, Ashbolt N J. Risk and governance in water recycling: public acceptance revisited. Science, Technology & Human Values , 2006, 31(2): 107–134
doi: 10.1177/0162243905283636
4 Sydney Water. Recycling. 2011. Available online at: http://www.sydneywater.com.au/Water4Life/recycling andreuse/(accessed August2, 2011)
5 Australian Bureau of Statistics. Water Account Australia 2008-09. 2010. Available online at: http://www. ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/D2335EFFE939C9BCCA2577E700158B1C/ $File/46100 _2008-09.pdf (accessed August2, 2011)
6 Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. Water Recycling in Australia 2004. 2004. Available online at: http://www.atse.org.au/resource-centre/func-startdown/136/ (accessed July1, 2011)
7 Aiken J T, Derry C, Attwater R. Impact of improved recycled water quality on a Sydney irrigation scheme. Water , 2010, 37(5): 86–90
8 Chapman H. WRAMS, sustainable water recycling. Desalination , 2006, 188(1-3): 105–111
doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.107
9 Anderson J. The environmental benefits of water recycling and reuse. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply , 2003, 3(4): 1–10
10 Hird W. Recycled water—case study: BlueScope steel, Port Kembla steelworks. Desalination , 2006, 188(1-3): 97–103
doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.106
11 Coutts S S. A recycled water strategy for regional urban communities. Desalination , 2006, 188(1-3): 185–194
doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.116
12 Muthukaruppan M, Arabatzoudis C, Poon J, Hau J, Simmonds K. Alternative water supply sources for industrial users—investigating options for the Altona Industrial Precinit, Victoria. Water , 2011, 38(2): 130–135
13 Jeffrey P, Seaton R, Parsons S, Stephenson T, Jefferson B. Exploring water recycling options for urban environments: a multi-criteria modeling approach. Urban Water , 1999, 1(3): 187–200
doi: 10.1016/S1462-0758(99)00016-3
14 Kiker G A, Bridges T S, Varghese A, Seager P T, Linkov I. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management , 2005, 1(2): 95–108
doi: 10.1897/IEAM_2004a-015.1 pmid:16639891
15 De Benedetto L, Kleme? J. The environmental performance strategy map: an integrated LCA approach to support the strategic decision-making process. Journal of Cleaner Production , 2009, 17(10): 900–906
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.02.012
16 Cooper E. Rouse Hill and Picton Reuse Schemes: innovative approaches to large-scale reuse. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply , 2003, 3(3): 49–54
17 Toole J O, Sinclair M, Leder K. Recycled water exposure: filling the data gaps. Water , 2008, 35(8): 52–57
18 Tangsubkul N, Beavis P, Moore S J, Lundie S, Waite T D. Life cycle assessment of water recycling technology. Water Resources Management , 2005, 19(5): 521–537
doi: 10.1007/s11269-005-5602-0
19 Pham T T N, Ngo H H, Guo W S, Dang H P D, Mainali B, Johnston A, Listowski A. Responses of community to the possible use of recycled water for washing machine: a case study in Sydney, Australia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 2011, 55(5): 535–540
doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.01.004
20 Spaninks F. Estimating the savings from water restrictions in Sydney. Water , 2010, 37(5): 65–70
21 Dillon P. Water reuse in Australia: current status, projections and research. In: Proceedings of the Water Recycling Australia 2000 Conference . Adelaide: Australia Water Association, 2000, 99–104
[1] Junchen Li, Sijie Lin, Liang Zhang, Yuheng Liu, Yongzhen Peng, Qing Hu. Brain-inspired multimodal approach for effluent quality prediction using wastewater surface images and water quality data[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2024, 18(3): 31-.
[2] Yanpeng Huang, Chao Wang, Yuanhao Wang, Guangfeng Lyu, Sijie Lin, Weijiang Liu, Haobo Niu, Qing Hu. Application of machine learning models in groundwater quality assessment and prediction: progress and challenges[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2024, 18(3): 29-.
[3] Yating Wei, Dong Hu, Chengsong Ye, Heng Zhang, Haoran Li, Xin Yu. Drinking water quality & health risk assessment of secondary water supply systems in residential neighborhoods[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2024, 18(2): 18-.
[4] Zebin Huo, Mengjun Xi, Lianrui Xu, Chuanjia Jiang, Wei Chen. Colloid-facilitated release of polybrominated diphenyl ethers at an e-waste recycling site: evidence from undisturbed soil core leaching experiments[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2024, 18(2): 21-.
[5] Hailong Yin, Yiyuan Lin, Huijin Zhang, Ruibin Wu, Zuxin Xu. Identification of pollution sources in rivers using a hydrodynamic diffusion wave model and improved Bayesian-Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(7): 85-.
[6] Zhaocai Wang, Qingyu Wang, Tunhua Wu. A novel hybrid model for water quality prediction based on VMD and IGOA optimized for LSTM[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(7): 88-.
[7] Junlang Li, Zhenguo Chen, Xiaoyong Li, Xiaohui Yi, Yingzhong Zhao, Xinzhong He, Zehua Huang, Mohamed A. Hassaan, Ahmed El Nemr, Mingzhi Huang. Water quality soft-sensor prediction in anaerobic process using deep neural network optimized by Tree-structured Parzen Estimator[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(6): 67-.
[8] Yirong Hu, Wenjie Du, Cheng Yang, Yang Wang, Tianyin Huang, Xiaoyi Xu, Wenwei Li. Source identification and prediction of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution of Lake Taihu by an ensemble machine learning technique[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2023, 17(5): 55-.
[9] Shuyi Wang, Xiang Qi, Yong Jiang, Panpan Liu, Wen Hao, Jinbin Han, Peng Liang. An antibiotic composite electrode for improving the sensitivity of electrochemically active biofilm biosensor[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(8): 97-.
[10] Liang Cui, Ji Li, Xiangyun Gao, Biao Tian, Jiawen Zhang, Xiaonan Wang, Zhengtao Liu. Human health ambient water quality criteria for 13 heavy metals and health risk assessment in Taihu Lake[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(4): 41-.
[11] Yunpeng Xing, Boyuan Xue, Yongshu Lin, Xueqi Wu, Fang Fang, Peishi Qi, Jinsong Guo, Xiaohong Zhou. A cellphone-based colorimetric multi-channel sensor for water environmental monitoring[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(12): 155-.
[12] Yindong Tong, Xuejun Wang, James J. Elser. Unintended nutrient imbalance induced by wastewater effluent inputs to receiving water and its ecological consequences[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(11): 149-.
[13] Ziyue Yin, Qing Lin, Shaohui Xu. Using hydrochemical signatures to characterize the long-period evolution of groundwater information in the Dagu River Basin, China[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 105-.
[14] Haiyan Yang, Shangping Xu, Derek E. Chitwood, Yin Wang. Ceramic water filter for point-of-use water treatment in developing countries: Principles, challenges and opportunities[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 79-.
[15] Isam Alyaseri, Jianpeng Zhou, Susan M. Morgan, Andrew Bartlett. Initial impacts of rain gardens’ application on water quality and quantity in combined sewer: field-scale experiment[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(4): 19-.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed