Listen

Climate change is causing increased flooding and droughts. Droughts can cause drinking water sources to run dry. Therefore, recycling water from the wastewater plant effluent to the water treatment plant influent, also called ‘direct reuse’ is becoming necessary. A connection between a city's wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent and water treatment plant (WTP) influent via pipe was simulated to provide an understanding of the capital costs and feasibility of execution. Hydraulic pipe-flow and pump equations were used to calculate the pipe and pump sizes needed for various flow rate and elevation head values. Various flow rate recycle rates were modeled by taking the WWTP effluent flow and in percentages ranging from 5 to 100% to estimate the pipe and pump requirements to send that amount to the WTP influent, including greenhouse gas emissions from pumping. The costs of installation were then determined using current market values for parts and trenching. Data analysis showed that the cost of this project is driven by the pump size requirements.

Listen

  • The hydraulics of direct reuse is important to its feasibility.

  • The pipe price is usually the main thing considered.

  • But the greenhouse gas emission of the pumping must also be considered.

  • Direct reuse will be more important in the future due to increasing drought.

  • Using a larger pipe and a smaller pump might be worth it over the life cycle of the project.

direct reuse, economics, hydraulics, pump curves, wastewater, water treatment
Listen
Ce

electricity price

D

pipe diameter

DPR

direct potable reuse

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

H

head

hL

headloss

HP

horsepower

kWh

kilowatt-hour

IPR

indirect potable reuse

LCC

lifecycle cost

Q

flowrate

Tr

runtime

UN

United Nations

WTP

water treatment plant

WWTP

wastewater treatment plant

$

cost in US dollars

Listen

The climate is changing, with one result being more drought and flooding. Warmer temperatures due to greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere stabilize the jet stream that conveys moisture in the atmosphere. Therefore, rainfall patterns will fall more over the same geographical area and result in more flooding. Conversely, more droughts will result since the jet stream will not bring moisture over lands that are not under it.

For drought-stricken areas or areas with fast-growing populations, direct potable water reuse is becoming an increasingly more prominent technology as areas are seeing a drop in surface- and ground-water source levels due to this drought (Rodriguez et al. 2009; Lahnsteiner et al. 2018; Tortajada 2020). There are two types of water reuse, direct (DPR) and indirect (IPR) (Jeffrey et al. 2022). IPR is the use of wastewater for drinking with an environmental buffer in place, like discharge to a lake, for example, prior to intake to a water treatment plant. The focus of this study is on DPR, which is the recycling of wastewater for potable use without discharge to the environment (Jeffrey et al. 2022).

Direct reuse (Silva 2023) refers to taking the wastewater treatment plant effluent and piping it to the inlet of the drinking water treatment plant so that essentially the same water is reused continuously, thereby negating the need for additional water from nature (Figure 1). This might include pumps, as well, to overcome any elevation rise and frictional head losses in the return piping. Pumps will require electricity and will have to be buried in a trench, which requires excavation. These additional costs might be worth it, however, if drinking water sources dry up in the region. In addition, pumping will use electricity that may be generated by the burning of coal, thereby emitting additional greenhouse gases, but this may not be avoidable in order to supply the population with clean drinking water.
Figure 1
Indirect and direct potable reuse schematics (dashed lines indicate additional required piping and possible pump(s), to recycle all or a portion of the wastewater effluent.).
View largeDownload slide

Indirect and direct potable reuse schematics (dashed lines indicate additional required piping and possible pump(s), to recycle all or a portion of the wastewater effluent.).

Figure 1
Indirect and direct potable reuse schematics (dashed lines indicate additional required piping and possible pump(s), to recycle all or a portion of the wastewater effluent.).
View largeDownload slide

Indirect and direct potable reuse schematics (dashed lines indicate additional required piping and possible pump(s), to recycle all or a portion of the wastewater effluent.).

Close modal

This is vitally important, according to the United Nations Sustainability Goals. Namely Goal 1 No Poverty, since potable water is essential to allow people to work to earn a living, Goal 3 Good Health and Well-Being since water is essential for life, Goal 4 Quality Education since students cannot study if they do not have clean drinking water, Goal 6 Clean Water and Sanitation (self-explanatory), Goal 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth since essential services such as drinking water allow people to be able to work, Goal 9 Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure since drinking water and sewer systems are essential infrastructure, Goal 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities since all people are entitled to clean drinking water and sanitation.

Water reuse does not only function to conserve drinking water resources; it also has other impacts. Reuse decreases the draw of water and the discharge of WWTP effluent into sensitive habitats (EPA). When water is drawn from a waterbody for drinking water demands, it can create an imbalance in the ecosystem due to a loss in water volume for the environment (EPA 2023). The WWTP effluent that is discharging into the waterbody can also be harmful (American Water Works Association 2016). In addition, the need for more dams and reservoirs is reduced. Direct reuse, however, means less water withdrawn from nature from the water treatment plant influent but then also less water discharged to nature from the wastewater plant effluent.

There are other relevant aspects of direct reuse that are related to this work. These include educational aspects (Rosenberg Goldstein et al. 2024), emerging contaminants (Han et al. 2023), lessons from earlier civilizations (Angelakis et al. 2023), water system supply resilience (Porse 2023), political issues (Procházková et al. 2023), public perception (Scruggs et al. 2020; Barnes et al. 2023; Fu et al. 2023; Pathiranage et al. 2024), management planning (Bunney et al. 2023), effect on the environment (Wang & Gu 2022; Munné et al. 2023), regulatory and operational scenarios (Cagno et al. 2022), relation to a circular economy (Urrea Vivas et al. 2023), demonstrating safety (Ness et al. 2023), monitoring (Jiang et al. 2022), and legal issues (Santos et al. 2022). Treatment processes such as nanocomposite ultrafiltration (Ayyaru & Ahn 2023), bromate formation (Babcock et al. 2023), biomanipulation (Du et al. 2023), electrochemical advanced oxidation (Forés et al. 2023), and identified bacterial consortium in slow-sand filters (Ibrahim et al. 2020) are also of prime interest.

This study focuses on the hydraulics, costs, and greenhouse gas emissions to directly connect a city's wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent to the city's water treatment plant (WTP) influent, compared to the do-nothing case of continuing to use the conventional method of using water from nature and not recycling it. This analysis does not explore any treatment process adjustments required or the impacts of this on the current WTP performance. This study is unique since it is the first to quantify the hydraulic and economic cost aspects of the transition to DPR.

Listen

Hydraulic pipe and pump equations were used to calculate the diameters of the return pipe and pump size. These results could apply to any type of water flowing through a pipe, not only through reclaimed water, thereby making these results even more broadly applicable. Key assumptions made are as follows in Table 1.

Table 1

Assumptions

ParameterMetric unitsEnglish units
Velocity 1.83 m/s 6.0 ft/s 
Water specific gravity (γ) 1,000 kg/m3 62.4 pounds per foot cubed 
Viscosity  0.001001607 kg*s/m2 0.000020919 lbf*s/ft2 
Pipe material Galvanized iron 
Pipe roughness, ε 0.00015 m 0.0005 ft 
WWTP effluent flow rate recycle 5–100% 
Distance (L) 4,828 m 15,840 ft 
Flow type Completely turbulent 
Elevation head 3–15 m 10–50 ft 
ParameterMetric unitsEnglish units
Velocity 1.83 m/s 6.0 ft/s 
Water specific gravity (γ) 1,000 kg/m3 62.4 pounds per foot cubed 
Viscosity  0.001001607 kg*s/m2 0.000020919 lbf*s/ft2 
Pipe material Galvanized iron 
Pipe roughness, ε 0.00015 m 0.0005 ft 
WWTP effluent flow rate recycle 5–100% 
Distance (L) 4,828 m 15,840 ft 
Flow type Completely turbulent 
Elevation head 3–15 m 10–50 ft 
View Large

The pipe diameter, D, was calculated from the continuity equation assuming the water velocity, V = 6 ft/s, which is midway between the lower limit to avoid sedimentation of 0.61 m/s (2 ft/s) and the upper limit to avoid particle scouring of the pipe walls of 3.05 m/s (10 ft/s). After this value of D was calculated, then the pipe diameter was rounded up to the next commercially available size. Independent variables used were WWTP effluent flow rate and elevation head between the WWTP and WTP.

Equations used were as follows:
(1)
where Q is the flow rate, A is the pipe cross-sectional area, and V is the velocity.
Then, the Reynolds number was determined from the following equation:
(2)
where D is the pipe diameter, V is the water velocity, ρ is the water density, and μ is the water viscosity (Shashi Menon 2015).
The Moody's friction factor (f) calculation depends on the flow regime through the pipe (Menon 2005). For the conditions studied here, the flow type based on the most accurate method of determining the friction factor, the Moody diagram and Reynold's number were determined to be completely turbulent flow and modeled using the following equation:
(3)
The total head loss was determined by the sum of the Darcy–Weisbach equation and elevation head (Menon 2005).
(4)
where L is the pipe length, D is the pipe diameter, V is the velocity, g is the gravitational acceleration, H is the elevation head, and f is the Darcy–Weisbach friction factor.
The total horsepower required for the pump is found using the following equation (Global Environmental Management Interior 2023)).
(5)
where HP is the horsepower, H is the elevation head, Q is the flow rate, and γ is the specific gravity.

Costs of installing a direct reuse pipe and pump from the WWTPP effluent to the WTP influent were estimated, compared to doing nothing. Based on the pipe diameter, pipe length, and pump horsepower, values of the cost of installation were determined from current equipment and construction costs (Table 2).

Table 2

Cost sources

Ductile iron pipe Fairfax (2024a),
Fairfax (2024b),
CCWA (2024) 
Michigan (2024)) 
Pump Inverter (2024a),
Inverter (2024b),
Absolute (2024) 
Dultmeier (2024)  
Excavation Iowa (2024)  
Maintenance  
Ductile iron pipe Fairfax (2024a),
Fairfax (2024b),
CCWA (2024) 
Michigan (2024)) 
Pump Inverter (2024a),
Inverter (2024b),
Absolute (2024) 
Dultmeier (2024)  
Excavation Iowa (2024)  
Maintenance  
View Large

To analyze the effect of increasing the percentage of WWTP effluent percentage to be recycled on the cost, the recycle flow was altered from 5 to 100% of the WWTP flow. Similarly, the elevation head (H) was varied from 10 to 50 feet to show the impact the variable would have on overall cost.

Lifecycle costs (LCC) were calculated that include not only initial costs but also costs over the entire lifetime of the project of 10 years. When calculating the total installation cost, the material estimations were gathered from material suppliers (Table 2). Within the life cycle cost estimations, the yearly additional costs are electricity, maintenance, and inflation.
(6)
The electrical expenses are based upon the pump runtime and horsepower:
(7)
where HP is the horsepower, tr is the pump runtime, and Ce is the electricity price (Terrell Hanna 2022).

The overall maintenance cost per year was estimated to be $760–$4,000 per year (Xylem 2015). These estimates are based on both planned and unplanned maintenance and are hard to estimate. They depend on how many clogging events occur, which depends on the water quality in the influent. Influent quality can vary considerably. These costs were increased by 2% each year due to inflation.

The carbon emission costs were calculated using 0.39 kg (0.86 lb) of CO2 per kWh of electricity usage (EIA 2024).

Listen
The completion of the study resulted in an overall understanding of what variables impact the cost of the application of the pipeline connecting the WWTP and WTP. It was found that head loss within the system drives the required pump horsepower (Figure 2).
Figure 2
Total friction headloss, hL (ft), for a given flow rate and elevation head. (1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 ft3/s = 0.305 m3/s).
View largeDownload slide

Total friction headloss, hL (ft), for a given flow rate and elevation head. (1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 ft3/s = 0.305 m3/s).

Figure 2
Total friction headloss, hL (ft), for a given flow rate and elevation head. (1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 ft3/s = 0.305 m3/s).
View largeDownload slide

Total friction headloss, hL (ft), for a given flow rate and elevation head. (1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 ft3/s = 0.305 m3/s).

Close modal

Figure 2 shows that as the percentage of the WWTP stream set to reuse increases, the head loss decreases. This can be attributed to the pipe diameter. As the elevation head increases, the total head loss increases; this is due to the elevation head being added to the head loss through the pipe. Even if the head loss in the pipe is zero, the elevation head will be attributed to the overall head loss. This is shown within the total head loss equation discussed in the Methods section above. Since V is kept near 1.83 m/s (6 ft/s), as Q increases, then D also increases, thereby resulting in a lower frictional headloss.

LCC values were calculated (Figure 3). It can be seen that the pump costs were the lowest cost, followed by excavation, electricity, and pipe costs.
Figure 3
Change in all components of LCC as flow increases for the case when head, H = 50 ft (1 ft3/s = 0.305 m3/s).
View largeDownload slide

Change in all components of LCC as flow increases for the case when head, H = 50 ft (1 ft3/s = 0.305 m3/s).

Figure 3
Change in all components of LCC as flow increases for the case when head, H = 50 ft (1 ft3/s = 0.305 m3/s).
View largeDownload slide

Change in all components of LCC as flow increases for the case when head, H = 50 ft (1 ft3/s = 0.305 m3/s).

Close modal
The major jumps within the graph in Figure 4 are due to the increase in horsepower requirements. Overall, the difference in elevation head has a minimal effect on the cost of this project, as can be seen by the overlap in the series. Flow greater than one pump size can handle required the installation of a larger pump, which thereby increased the pump and electricity costs substantially.
Figure 4
Normalized change in installation costs as normalized recycle rate increases, showing a big increase when a larger pump was required at Q/Qmax = 0.6 and that there is little variation with H values (Q is flow rate and H is head; 1 ft3/s = 0.305 m3/s).
View largeDownload slide

Normalized change in installation costs as normalized recycle rate increases, showing a big increase when a larger pump was required at Q/Qmax = 0.6 and that there is little variation with H values (Q is flow rate and H is head; 1 ft3/s = 0.305 m3/s).

Figure 4
Normalized change in installation costs as normalized recycle rate increases, showing a big increase when a larger pump was required at Q/Qmax = 0.6 and that there is little variation with H values (Q is flow rate and H is head; 1 ft3/s = 0.305 m3/s).
View largeDownload slide

Normalized change in installation costs as normalized recycle rate increases, showing a big increase when a larger pump was required at Q/Qmax = 0.6 and that there is little variation with H values (Q is flow rate and H is head; 1 ft3/s = 0.305 m3/s).

Close modal
In addition to the installation costs, the life cycle costs (LCC) were determined utilizing estimated costs for electricity, maintenance, and carbon emissions over a 10-year period. Figure 5 displays the effect of the percent flow rate on the project LCC.
Figure 5
LCC for a given percent of WWTP recycle flow and head (1 ft = 0.305 m).
View largeDownload slide

LCC for a given percent of WWTP recycle flow and head (1 ft = 0.305 m).

Figure 5
LCC for a given percent of WWTP recycle flow and head (1 ft = 0.305 m).
View largeDownload slide

LCC for a given percent of WWTP recycle flow and head (1 ft = 0.305 m).

Close modal

The flux in LCC is caused by the pumping requirements and pipe diameters. As the flow rate increases, the equipment costs increase, resulting in a higher LCC. For the conditions entered in this example, the cheapest course of action is to recycle the lowest percentage of flow at an elevation head of 3.05 m (10 ft) or 6.10 m (20 ft). The most expensive method would be 100% of the flow and an elevation head of 12.19 m (40 ft) or 15.24 m (50 ft).

The amount of carbon emission (Figure 6) increases linearly with the recycle rate and head but exhibits a drop at 70% recycle rate due to the use of a smaller pump, which uses less energy.
Figure 6
Carbon emissions for a given percent of WWTP recycle flow and head (1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 0.45 kg).
View largeDownload slide

Carbon emissions for a given percent of WWTP recycle flow and head (1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 0.45 kg).

Figure 6
Carbon emissions for a given percent of WWTP recycle flow and head (1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 0.45 kg).
View largeDownload slide

Carbon emissions for a given percent of WWTP recycle flow and head (1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 lb = 0.45 kg).

Close modal

A sensitivity analysis was performed on the variables of pipe length, L, and pipe roughness, ε. The results show that a 10% change in L resulted in a 21% change in LCC resulted in a 10% change in ε resulted in a 28% change in LCC, both at H = 15.24 m (50 ft) and Q = 0.28 m3/s (10 ft3/s). These are both significant, thereby showing that their values need to be carefully considered when designing direct reuse.

This study does not include additional treatment costs for bringing the WWTP effluent quality to the drinking water supply requirements or its operation and maintenance costs. These should be added as well. These costs are dependent on the WWTP effluent quality, which could vary widely depending on the influent quality and the treatment processes employed.

Listen

The LCC of direct potable reuse recycle piping varies depending on the flow rate to be recycled. If drought conditions are persistent, then more water must be recycled due to the scarcity of water sources. Cost and risk must be weighed in this case to make the best decision. There is an optimal value of the recycle rate that results from the use of a smaller pump since it costs less and uses less electricity. For the cases studied here, that was about 60% recycled. No optimal value of recycling exists to minimize LCCs since the slope of the curve is monotonically and linearly proportional. Carbon emissions increase linearly with the recycle rate and head but have a drop at 70% recycling due to the use of a smaller pump.

Listen

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

Listen

The authors declare there is no conflict.

American Water Works Association
(
2016
)
Potable Reuse 101. An innovative and sustainable water supply solution. Available at: https://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/AWWA/ETS/Resources/PotableReuse101.pdf?ver=2018-12-12-182505-710#:∼:text=An%20advanced%20treatment%20plant%20for,barrier%20approach%20to%20contaminant%20removal (Accessed: 19 January 2024)
.
Angelakis
A. N.
,
Tzanakakis
V. A.
,
Capodaglio
A. G.
 &
Dercas
N. A
.
2023
Critical review of water reuse: lessons from prehistoric Greece for present and future challenges
.
Water (Switzerland)
,
15
(
13
).
doi:10.3390/w15132385
.
Google Scholar
 
Ayyaru
S.
 &
Ahn
Y.-H.
 (
2023
)
Novel sulfonated rGOHfO2/PVDF hybrid nanocomposite ultrafiltration membrane towards direct potable reuse water production
,
Journal of Cleaner Production
,
415
.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137804
.
Google Scholar
 
Babcock
N.
,
La Breche
N.
,
Robinson
K.
 &
Pisarenko
A. N.
 (
2023
)
Empirical modeling of bromate formation and chemical control strategies at multiple water reuse facilities using ozone
,
Ozone: Science and Engineering
,
45
(
5
),
446
–
454
.
doi:10.1080/01919512.2022.2161469
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
Barnes
J. L.
,
Krishen
A. S.
 &
Hu
H.-F.
 (
2023
)
Public tap water perceptions and potable reuse acceptance: a cognitive dissonance theoretical understanding
,
Journal of Cleaner Production
,
429
.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139587
.
Google Scholar
 
Bunney
S.
,
Melville-Shreeve
P.
,
Chisholm
A.
 &
Cotterill
S.
 (
2023
)
Perspectives on multi-benefit water reuse systems: a confluence of water and wastewater management planning
,
Water and Environment Journal
,
37
(
3
),
561
–
572
.
doi:10.1111/wej.12859
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
Cagno
E.
,
Garrone
P.
,
Negri
M.
 &
Rizzuni
A.
 (
2022
)
Adoption of water reuse technologies: an assessment under different regulatory and operational scenarios
,
Journal of Environmental Management
,
317
.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115389
.
Google Scholar
 
CCWA
(
2024
)
Ductile Iron Pipe – Bid Tabulation. Available at: https://www.ccwa.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2022-Ductile-Iron-Pipe-Final-Bid-Tabulation.pdf (Accessed: 19 January 2024)
.
Du
C.
,
Guo
W.
,
Li
G.
,
Bai
M.
,
Zhu
Q.
,
Tian
Z.
,
Li
M.
,
Zhao
C.
 &
Zhang
L.
 (
2023
)
Biomanipulation improves the safety of reclaimed water reuse
,
Environ Res. 228, 115801. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4329664
.
Google Scholar
 
Dultmeier
(
2024
)
Dultmeier Sales. Available at: https://www.dultmeier.com/ (Accessed: 19 January 2024)
.
EIA
(
2024
)
U.S. Energy Information Administration. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 (Accessed: 19 January 2024)
.
Fairfax
(
2024a
)
IFB 20-07 Ductile iron Pipe and Accessories. Available at: https://www.fairfaxwater.org/sites/default/files/solicitations/20-07%20Price%20List.pdf (Accessed: 19 January 2024)
.
Fairfax
(
2024b
)
IFB 20-07 Unit Price Schedule. Available at: https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/landdevelopment/sites/landdevelopment/files/assets/documents/pdf/publications/unit-price-schedule.pdf (Accessed: 19 January 2024)
.
Forés
E.
,
Mejías-Molina
C.
,
Ramos
A.
,
Itarte
M.
,
Hundesa
A.
,
Rusiñol
M.
,
Martínez-Puchol
S.
,
Esteve-Bricullé
P.
,
Espejo-Valverde
A.
,
Sirés
I.
,
Calvo
M.
,
Araujo
R. M.
 &
Girones
R.
 (
2023
)
Evaluation of pathogen disinfection efficiency of electrochemical advanced oxidation to become a sustainable technology for water reuse
,
Chemosphere
,
313
.
doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.137393
.
Google Scholar
 
Fu
H.
,
Zhang
H.
,
Zhang
M.
 &
Hou
C.
 (
2023
)
Modeling and dynamic simulation of the public's intention to reuse recycled water based on eye movement data
,
Water (Switzerland)
,
15
(
1
).
doi:10.3390/w15010114
.
Google Scholar
 
Global Environmental Management Interior
(
2023
)
Available at:
http://waterplanner.gemi.org/calc-horsepower.asp
(Accessed: 11 December 2023)
.
Han
Y.
,
Li
H.
,
Liao
C.
,
Zhu
X.
,
Wang
Z.
,
Yan
J.
 &
Wang
X.
 (
2023
)
Rapid warning of emerging contaminants in reuse water using biocathode sensors
,
Journal of Hazardous Materials
,
457
.
doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.131735
.
Google Scholar
 
Ibrahim
S.
,
El-Liethy
M. A.
,
Elwakeel
K. Z.
,
Abd El-Gabbar Hasan
M.
,
Mahmoud Al Zanaty
A.
 &
Mohamed Kamel
M.
 (
2020
)
Role of identified bacterial consortium in treatment of Quhafa wastewater treatment plant influent in Fayuom, Egypt
,
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
,
192
,
161
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-8105-9
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
Inverter
(
2024a
)
Centrifugal Pump Price List. Available at: https://www.inverter.com/centrifugal-pump-price-list (Accessed: 19 January 2024)
.
Inverter
(
2024b
)
Centrifugal Pump. Available at: https://www.inverter.com/centrifugal-pump#/pageSize=20&viewMode=list&orderBy=0&pageNumber=2 (Accessed: 19 January 2024)
.
Iowa
(
2024
)
Analyzed Unit Cost Schedule. Available at: https://tax.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-01/Analyzed%20Unit%20Cost.pdf (Accessed: 19 January 2024)
.
Jeffrey
P.
,
Yang
Z.
 &
Judd
S. J.
 (
2022
)
The status of potable water reuse implementation
,
Water Research
,
214
,
118198
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.118198
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
Jiang
S. C.
,
Bischel
H. N.
,
Goel
R.
,
Rosso
D.
,
Sherchan
S. P.
,
Whiteson
K. L.
,
Yan
T.
 &
Solo-Gabriele
H. M.
 (
2022
)
Integrating virus monitoring strategies for safe non-potable water reuse
,
Water (Switzerland)
,
14
(
8
).
doi:10.3390/w14081187
.
Google Scholar
 
Lahnsteiner
J.
,
van Rensburg
P.
 &
Esterhuizen
J.
 (
2018
)
Direct potable reuse – a feasible water management option
,
Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination
,
8
(
1
),
14
–
28
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wrd.2017.172.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
Magureanu
M.
 (
2024
)
Plasma treatment of sulfamethoxazole contaminated water: intermediate products, toxicity assessment and potential agricultural reuse
,
Science of The Total Environment
,
909
.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168524
.
Google Scholar
 
Menon
E. S.
 (
2005
)
‘
Water Systems Piping
’ Piping Calculations Manual
, 1st ed.
New York, NY, USA
:
McGraw-Hill Education
,
Chap. 1, Available at: https://www-accessengineeringlibrary-com.services.lib.mtu.edu/content/book/9780071440905/chapter/chapter1 (Accessed: 19 January 2024)
.
Google Scholar
 
Munné
A.
,
Solà
C.
,
Ejarque
E.
,
Sanchís
J.
,
Serra
P.
,
Corbella
I.
,
Aceves
M.
,
Galofré
B.
,
Boleda
M. R.
,
Paraira
M.
 &
Molist
J.
 (
2023
)
Indirect potable water reuse to face drought events in Barcelona city. Setting a monitoring procedure to protect aquatic ecosystems and to ensure a safe drinking water supply
,
Science of The Total Environment
,
866
.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161339
.
Google Scholar
 
Ness
A.
,
Zarei-Baygi
A.
 &
Macnevin
D.
 (
2023
)
Measure viruses in the field to demonstrate water reuse safety
,
Opflow
,
49
(
7
),
24
–
27
.
doi:10.1002/opfl.1857
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
Pathiranage
W.
,
Bray
L.
,
Jones
K.
,
Redwine
N.
,
Saralvarez
J.
 &
D'Alessio
M.
 (
2024
)
Perception and acceptance towards water reuse in the Southeast United States: a public survey
,
Science of The Total Environment
,
908
.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168224
.
Google Scholar
 
Porse
E.
 (
2023
)
Systems analysis of metropolitan-scale reuse with effects on water supply resilience and water quality
,
Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems
.
doi:10.1080/10286608.2023.2263746
.
Google Scholar
 
Procházková
M.
,
Touš
M.
,
Horňák
D.
,
Miklas
V.
,
Vondra
M.
 &
Máša
V.
 (
2023
)
Industrial wastewater in the context of European Union water reuse legislation and goals
,
Journal of Cleaner Production
,
426
.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139037
.
Google Scholar
 
Rodriguez
C.
,
Van Buynder
P.
,
Lugg
R.
,
Blair
P.
,
Devine
B.
,
Cook
A.
 &
Weinstein
P.
 (
2009
)
Indirect potable reuse: a sustainable water supply alternative
,
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
,
6
,
1174
–
1209
.
doi:10.3390/ijerph6031174
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
Rosenberg Goldstein
R. E.
,
Gerdes
M. E.
,
Fix
S.
,
Vivino
A.
,
Rainey
K.
 &
Bernat
E.
 (
2024
)
Evaluating the impact of water reuse educational videos on water reuse perceptions using EEG/event related potential
,
Journal of Environmental Management
,
349
.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119560
.
Google Scholar
 
Santos
A. S. P.
,
Pachawo
V.
,
Melo
M. C.
 &
Vieira
J. M. P.
 (
2022
)
Progress on legal and practical aspects on water reuse with emphasis on drinking water – an overview
,
Water Supply
,
22
(
3
),
3000
–
3014
.
doi:10.2166/WS.2021.412
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
Scruggs
C. E.
,
Pratesi
C. B.
 &
Fleck
J. R.
 (
2020
)
Direct potable water reuse in five arid inland communities: an analysis of factors influencing public acceptance
,
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
,
63
(
8
),
1470
–
1500
.
doi:10.1080/09640568.2019.1671815
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
Shashi Menon
E.
 (
2015
)
Fluid flow in pipes
. In:
Shashi Menon
E.
 (ed.)
Transmission Pipeline Calculations and Simulations Manual
,
Houston, TX, USA: Gulf Professional Publishing
,
Chap. 5,
pp.
149
–
234
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
Silva
J. A.
 (
2023
)
Water supply and wastewater treatment and reuse in future cities: a systematic literature review
,
Water (Switzerland)
,
15
(
17
).
doi:10.3390/w15173064
.
Google Scholar
 
Terrell Hanna
K.
 (
2022
)
What is horsepower (hp)? Available at: https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/horsepower-hp#:∼:text=A%20power%20level%20of%201,to%20kilowatts%2C%20multiply%20by%200.746 (Accessed: 11 December 2023)
.
Tortajada
C.
 (
2020
)
Contributions of recycled wastewater to clean water and sanitation. sustainable development goals
,
NPJ Clean Water
,
3
(
22
).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-020-0069-3
.
Google Scholar
 
Urrea Vivas
M. A.
,
Seguí-Amórtegui
L.
,
Tomás Pérez
C.
 &
Guerrero-García Rojas
H.
 (
2023
)
Technical–economic evaluation of water reuse at the WWTP El salitre (Bogotá, Colombia): example of circular economy
,
Water (Switzerland)
,
15
(
19
).
doi:10.3390/w15193374
.
Google Scholar
 
Wang
M.
 &
Gu
J.
 (
2022
). '
Study on the influence of reclaimed water reuse on river water
',
Proceedings of the 9th Academic Conference of Geology Resource Management and Sustainable Development
, pp.
1094
–
1099
.
Google Scholar
 
Xylem
(
2015
)
Life Cycle Costs (LCC) for wastewater pumping systems. Available at: https://www.xylem.com/siteassets/support/tekniska-rapporter/white-papers-pdf/life-cycle-costs-lcc-for-wastewater-pumping-systems.pdf (Accessed: 11 December 2023)
.
© 2025 The Authors
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).