ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2016
Field study of the composition of greywater and comparison of microbiological indicators of water quality in on-site systems.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Environmental DNA-Based Bacterial Community Characteristics in Rural Greywater: A Case Study from Eastern China.Biology · 2026Article
- Optimization of a Monopolar Electrode Configuration for Hybrid Electrochemical Treatment of Real Washing Machine Wastewater.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Greywater Reuse: Contaminant Profile, Health Implications, and Sustainable Solutions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Review
- Bacterial community activity and dynamics in the biofilm of an experimental hybrid wetland system treating greywater.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019Article
- Constructed wetlands for greywater recycle and reuse: A review.The Science of the total environment · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thirty on-site greywater systems were sampled to determine greywater characteristics and practices in the field. Kitchen greywater was present at eight sites and urine was included at seven sites. These non-traditional sources resulted in significantly higher concentrations of enterococci and 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) in greywater. Even with the removal of these sources, the concentrations of microbial indicators indicated high levels of contamination could occur across all greywater sources, including "light" greywater. Using multiple microbial indicators showed that all samples had the potential for faecal contamination. Bacteroidales markers were confirmed in treated greywater and in each greywater source, highlighting the potential for human faecal contamination. Although Escherichia coli was absent in treated greywater recycled to the house, other microbial indicators were present; hence, caution is required in using E. coli concentrations as the sole indicator of microbiological water quality. High BOD5 or total suspended solid concentrations exceeded the levels recommended for effective disinfection. Subsurface irrigation, which is assumed to provide a five-log reduction in exposure, is a suitable reuse option for non-disinfected greywater. Only half the occupants had a good understanding of their greywater systems and 25 % of systems were poorly maintained. Elevated microbial indicator contamination of greywater sludge is a potential hazard during maintenance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27435622What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.