ARTICLE IN PRESS

Building and Environment 42 (2007) 25122522 www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Potential for potable water savings by using rainwater and greywater in a multi-storey residential building in southern Brazil
Enedir Ghisi, Daniel F. Ferreira
polis-SC, 88040-900, Brazil Laboratory of Energy Efciency in Buildings, Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Floriano Received 10 May 2006; received in revised form 5 July 2006; accepted 20 July 2006

Abstract Studies on the use of rainwater and greywater to promote potable water savings have been performed in different countries. The main objective of this article is to evaluate the potential for potable water savings by using rainwater and greywater in a multi-storey residential polis, southern Brazil. Water end-uses were estimated by applying questionnaires building composed of three blocks, located in Floriano and measuring water ow rates. An economic analysis was performed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of using rainwater and greywater either separately or together. Results show that the average potential for potable water savings range from 39.2% to 42.7% amongst the three blocks, considering that water for toilet ushing, clothes washing and cleaning does not need to be potable. By using rainwater, the potable water savings would actually range from 14.7% to 17.7%. When greywater is considered alone, potable water savings are higher, i.e., ranging from 28.7% to 34.8%. As for the use of rainwater and greywater combined, the potable water savings range from 36.7% to 42.0%. The main conclusion that can be made from the research is that the three systems that were investigated are cost effective as the payback periods were lower than 8 years, but the greywater system was the most cost effective one, followed closely by the rainwater one. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Potable water savings; Water end-uses; Greywater; Rainwater; Multi-storey residential buildings

1. Introduction Rainwater harvesting and reuse of greywater have been studied in many countries as a way of promoting potable water savings in buildings. Some researches focused on the use of rainwater [17], others on greywater [813] and a few on the combination of rainwater and greywater [14,15]. As for Brazil, a previous study focused on the use of rainwater and greywater either separately or together in two houses in the city of Palhoc - a, state of Santa Catarina [16]. It was reported that the use of rainwater would promote potable water savings of 33.635.5%; the use of greywater would promote potable water savings of 25.630.4%; and the combination of rainwater and greywater would promote potable water savings of 33.836.4%. Although the potential for potable water savings is very signicant, none of the three systems were cost effective.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 48 3331 5185; fax: +55 48 3331 5191.

This was due to the fact that the local water utility charges for a water consumption of 10 m3 when the consumption is lower than that. This article contributes with further progress on the subject as it assesses the cost effectiveness of using rainwater and greywater in a multi-storey polis, southern Brazil. residential building in Floriano 2. Objectives The main objective of this article is to estimate the potential for potable water savings by using rainwater and reusing greywater in a multi-storey residential building polis, southern Brazil. An located in the city of Floriano economic analysis is performed in order to evaluate the cost effectiveness of using rainwater and greywater either separately or together. 3. Location polis, which is a small island in The city of Floriano southern Brazil, is located at the latitude 271360 south and

E-mail address: enedir@labeee.ufsc.br (E. Ghisi). 0360-1323/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.07.019

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Ghisi, D.F. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 25122522 2513

polis. Fig. 1. Map of Brazil and Floriano

Fig. 2. Main fac - ade of A and B blocks.

longitude 481330 west. Fig. 1 shows a map of Brazil polis. Average rainfall indicating the location of Floriano amounts to 1544 mm per year [17], ranging from about 80 mm in June to about 200 mm in February. The study was performed by analysing a four-storey residential building composed of three blocks which were built in 1981. There are 16 three-bedroom ats in A and C

blocks, and 17 in B block. Fig. 2 shows a view of A and B blocks. 4. Methodology The research was based on the estimation of water enduses, use of computer simulation and economic analysis.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2514 E. Ghisi, D.F. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 25122522

The methodology applied to accomplish the objectives of this research is as follows. 4.1. Data survey In order to estimate the water end-uses in the building, some data had to be collected. These were obtained by interviewing the residents, measuring water ow rates and obtaining the water consumption from the local water utility. 4.1.1. Interviews Interviews were needed in order to obtain the frequency of use of the plumbing xtures as well as the amount of time such xtures are used. The number of residents to be interviewed was estimated by using Eq. (1), which is the equation recommended by Barbetta [18] to estimate a population-based representative sample. nX 1=2 N , 1=2 N (1)

where Cpc is the average daily water consumption per capita for each block (litres per person per day), C is the average monthly water consumption for each block (m3/month), 1000 is the conversion factor from m3 to litre, Nr is the average number of residents per at in each block (person per at), Nats is the number of ats in each block (ats), and Nd is the number of days in a month (days). 4.2. Estimated water consumption From the information obtained from the interviews, the specic water consumption of each plumbing xture could be calculated. For showers, toilet ushing, lavatory, kitchen taps and laundry trough, this was done by using Eq. (3). C d F T Q, (3) where Cd is the daily water consumption of each plumbing xture (litres per day), F is the daily frequency of use of each plumbing xture (times per day), T is the average time of use of each plumbing xture (seconds per time of use), and Q is the water ow rate of each plumbing xture (litres per second). The amount of water used for cooking was estimated from Eq. (4). C dc F q, (4) where Cdc is the daily water consumption for cooking (litres per day), F is the daily frequency of use of water for cooking (times per day), and q is the amount of water used for cooking (litres). As for the water consumption of washing machines, it was estimated by using Eq. (5). C dwm F c, (5) where Cdwm is the daily water consumption of washing machines (litres per day), F is the daily frequency of use of washing machines (times per day), and c is the volume of water consumed over each operation of washing machines (litres per cycle), as given by the residents. 4.3. Sensitivity analysis In order to account for discrepancies between the water consumption estimated from the interviews and the actual water consumption, a sensitivity analysis was performed. This was done for the ats with the highest and lowest water consumption, as well as for each block average. Such a sensitivity analysis has already been used by Ghisi and Oliveira [16] and Kammers and Ghisi [20]. Table 1 shows the parameters considered for this analysis. 4.4. Water end-uses From the estimated water consumption, water end-uses were calculated (in litres and also in percentage) for each resident, each at, each block and for the whole building.

where n is the sample size, N is the population size, e is the sample error (from 1% to 20%). The sample error chosen to be applied in this research was 12%. The interviews were performed on different oors and in the three blocks, and also in ats occupied either by families or students. The users were requested to give information on the frequency of use of the plumbing xtures and amount of time the water is used over the working days and weekends. A weighted average was performed to obtain the frequency of use and amount of time for each resident. From these, gures were obtained for each resident, at, block and the whole building. The interviews were performed from December 2003 to February 2004. 4.1.2. Water ow rate Due to the difculty of access to the ats, the water ow rates were measured in one at only. The water ow rate of taps and showers was estimated by measuring the time for a container with a capacity of 350 ml to ll with water. As for the toilets, which are all with wall ushing valves, the water ow rate was assumed to be 1.7 l/s as recommended by the Brazilian Standard NBR 5626 [19]. The volume of water used in the washing machines was determined by asking the residents about the amount of water used per cycle. 4.1.3. Actual water consumption The monthly potable water consumption of each block was obtained from the water utility for the period March 2002November 2003. Daily potable water consumption per capita was calculated by using Eq. (2). C pc C 1000 , N r N flats N d (2)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Ghisi, D.F. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 25122522 Table 1 Variation on frequency, amount of time of use and water ow rate for the sensitivity analysis Plumbing xtures Toilet Shower Kitchen tap Parameter Water ow rate Frequency Time Time Range 70.6 l/s 73 times 76 min 76 min Increment 0.2 l/s 1 time 2 min 2 min 2515

reused for toilet ushing. Thus, the percentage of greywater that can be available for each block is given by using Eq. (7). Pgw Psh Plv Pcw , (7) where Pgw is the percentage of greywater that can be reused (%), Psh is the shower end-use (%), Plv is the lavatory enduse (%), and Pcw is the clothes washing (washing machine and laundry trough) end-use (%). The lower greywater tank capacity was estimated by comparing the percentage of greywater that can be available for each block with the water end-use for toilet ushing. The greywater tank does not need to store more greywater than the amount needed daily for toilet ushing. Therefore, the greywater tank was dimensioned to store the least volume between the available greywater and the water needed for toilet ushing. Upper greywater tank capacities were also estimated following the same procedure. 4.5.3. Rainwater and greywater tank capacity When rainwater and greywater are used together, it was deemed appropriate to use rst the greywater, then the rainwater. In case there was lack of any, then potable water was to be used. Thus, the greywater tank capacities will be the same as described previously. The rainwater tanks, on the other hand, will need re-dimensioning as they will be smaller. The procedure to estimate their capacities is the same as described previously, just considering the appropriate percentage of potable water to be replaced by rainwater. 4.5.4. Greywater treatment Although greywater is meant to be used for toilet ushing only, it is proposed that it can be treated by going through a wetland system. This system is a biological lter composed of gravel or sand and swamp plants; it enables the degradation of organic substances. A wetland system was dimensioned for each block considering a plan area of 0.8 m2 per person as adopted by Ghisi and Oliveira [16]. 4.6. Economic analysis As it would be too difcult to refurbish the buildings to implement any of the three systems, an economic analysis was performed considering the use of any of the systems in similar new buildings. Material costs were surveyed from three local stores and an average was adopted. As for the wetland system, it was considered a cost of R$ 49.00/m2 [16]. Electricity costs to operate the water pumps were also taken into account. The pumps were estimated to be 3 4 HP and to operate 4 h a day, with an electricity tariff of R$ 0.337220/kW h. The simple payback method was used. First, the potable water demand per capita was estimated for each block by using Eq. (2). Then, the actual annual water costs were estimated by using Eq. (8). Finally, by considering the potential for potable water savings obtained from the

The actual water consumption obtained from the water utility was compared to the estimated water consumption. In case there were any discrepancies, the sensitivity analysis was applied. 4.5. Tank capacities Based on the estimated water end-uses, the potential for potable water savings and tank capacities was determined. A two-tank system is to be used. One tank is placed on ground level (lower tank) and the other on the roof (upper tank). When rainwater and greywater are used together, they are stored separately and this requires four tanks. 4.5.1. Rainwater tank capacity Rainwater tank capacities were estimated for each block by assuming that rainwater can be used for toilet ushing, washing machine and laundry trough (Eq. (6)). Prain Ptf Pwm Plt , (6) where Prain is the percentage of potable water that can be replaced by rainwater (%), Ptf is the toilet ushing end-use (%), Pwm is the washing machine end-use (%), and Plt is the laundry trough end-use (%). The Neptune computer programme [21] was used to estimate the rainwater tank capacity. Daily rainwater data polis were available for the period 20012003. for Floriano The input data needed to run the programme were potable water demand, total water end-use from toilet ushing, washing machine and laundry trough, daily rainwater data, number of residents in the block, roof area, and runoff coefcient. Neptune estimates the potential for potable water savings for tank capacities ranging from 1000 to 60,000 litres at increments of 1000 litres. Then the ideal tank capacity was taken as the one in which the potential for potable water savings increased 0.5% or less when increasing the tank capacity in 1000 litres. Details on the algorithm of the programme can be found in Refs. [7,16]. Such a procedure was adopted to estimate the lower rainwater tanks. As for the upper tanks, their capacities were estimated to store, at least, the daily water consumption for toilet ushing, washing machine and laundry trough. 4.5.2. Greywater tank capacity In the scope of this study, it was considered that water used for shower, lavatories and clothes washing could be

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2516 E. Ghisi, D.F. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 25122522 Table 3 Frequency and time of use of activities and plumbing xtures located in the bathroom Activity/xture Below 10 1125 Above 26 1.705 2.975 4.064 Block Frequency (times per day) 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.5 4.3 4.0 4.3 4.2 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.9 4.3 5.7 4.2 4.7 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Time (s) Table 2 Potable water tariffs practised by the water utility Consumption range (m3) Costs (R$/m3)

Shower

Note: R$ stands for Brazilian Real (on 29 March 2006, R$ 1 US$ 0.4511 0.2599).

A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average

636.7 663.6 818.6 706.3 7.6 9.4 6.9 7.9 16.1 33.4 23.6 24.4 13.3 21.1 9.9 14.8 14.8 25.7 19.1 19.9 16.9 16.6 20.0 17.9

research, new annual water costs were also estimated (Eq. (9)). The payback period was then calculated by using Eq. (8). C 1 C wc1 N flats 1:8, (8)

Toilet ushing

Tooth brushing

where C1 is the monthly water costs for each block (Brazilian Reais), Cwc1 is the average water costs for each at as practised by the water utility and shown in Table 2 (R$ per at), 1.8 is a multiplication factor practised by the water utility to charge for the sewage system (nondimensional), and Nats is the number of ats in each block (ats). C 2 C wc2 N flats 1:8, (9)

Hands washing

Face washing

where C2 is the new monthly water costs for each block (Brazilian Reais), Cwc2 is the average water costs for each at as practised by the water utility (Table 2) considering the reduction obtained by using rainwater or greywater either separately or together (R$ per at), 1.8 is a multiplication factor practised by the water utility to charge for the sewage system (non-dimensional), and Nats is the number of ats in each block (ats). Ci , Ti C 1 C 2 12 (10)

Shaving

5.2. Water ow rate Measured water ow rates obtained from at 402, in A block, are shown in Table 5. These should have been measured in other ats as well, but due to the difculty in gaining access to the ats, measurements were performed only in at 402. 5.3. Actual water consumption Actual potable water consumption was obtained from the water bills for the period March 2002November 2003. These are shown in Fig. 3. It can be noticed that the water consumption in B block was more steady than in the other blocks. Table 6 shows the average water consumption for these blocks. 5.4. Water end-uses From the interviews and water ow rate measurements, water end-uses were estimated. Table 7 shows the results. It can be noticed that on average toilet ushing and washing up account for 32.8% and 29.9% of the potable water consumed in the three blocks, respectively. However, the estimated potable water consumption ranged from 7.1%

where Ti is the payback period estimated for each block and for each system (years), C1 is the monthly water costs for each block (Brazilian Reais), C2 is the new monthly water costs for each block (Brazilian Reais), Ci is the total costs for implementing each system in each block (Brazilian Reais), and 12 is the conversion factor from month to year. 5. Results 5.1. Interviews Considering a sample error of 12% and a population of 147 residents (three people per at), the estimated sample size was 48 people. By interviewing these people, it was found that the average number of people per at is 2.4. Therefore, the total number of people living in the buildings is 118 instead of 147. Thus, the sample error is 11%. Average gures obtained from the interviews are shown in Table 3. Table 4 shows the frequency and time of use for the activities in which all residents of each at benet, such as clothes washing, cooking, etc.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Ghisi, D.F. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 25122522 Table 4 Frequency and time of use (or consumption) of other activities and plumbing xtures Activity/xture Block Frequency (times per day) 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Time (s) Consumption (l)
300 Water consumption (m3) 250 200 150 100 50 0 Mar-02 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 Jul-02 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Month/year A Block B Block C Block

2517

Washing up

A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average A B C Average

526.8 387.6 313.2 409.2 79.0 101.0 123.3 101.1 165.0 220.0 289.0 224.7

1.5 1.8 0.9 1.4 14.1 14.7 16.5 15.1 1.7 1.7 4.2 2.5

Cooking

Fig. 3. Monthly water consumption for each block. Table 6 Average water consumption for each block Block Average water consumption m3 per month A B C Average 196 184 160 180 Litres/capita per day 179.1 133.3 141.4 151.3

Laundry trough

Washing machine

Cleaning (bucket)

Cleaning (trough)

Table 7 Water end-uses for each block Activity Water end-uses (%) A block Toilet ushing Washing up Shower Lavatory Clothes washing Cleaning Cooking Total (litres/capita per day) 33.9 34.0 16.7 10.7 2.0 2.2 0.4 166.3 B block 31.9 35.1 12.8 14.3 3.4 1.7 0.7 197.8 C block 32.5 20.7 26.3 12.3 5.7 1.8 0.7 152.8 Average 32.8 29.9 18.6 12.4 3.7 1.9 0.6 172.3

Table 5 Water ow rate Fixture Shower Lavatory Kitchen sink tap Laundry trough tap Water ow rate (l/s) 0.03 0.12 0.11 0.11

Note: Lavatory end-use includes tooth brushing, hands washing, face washing and shaving. Clothes washing end-use includes laundry trough and washing machine. Cleaning end-use includes bucket and trough.

to 48.4% when compared to the actual water consumption, as shown in Table 8. 5.5. Sensitivity analysis In order to make adjustments on the estimated water consumption, a sensitivity analysis was performed. This enabled the pluming xtures that inuence most on the water consumption to be identied. The sensitivity analysis was performed for the at with the highest water consumption (at 102, B block), for the at with the lowest water consumption (at 303, C block), and for the average water consumption of each block and for the three

blocks together. Figs. 47 show the results obtained for the sensitivity analysis performed on some xtures of ats 102 and 303. It can be observed that the water consumption is more sensitive to variation on time of use of kitchen sink tap and variation on frequency of toilet ushing. Figs. 811 show the sensitivity analysis for the three blocks, where a similar trend is observed, i.e., time of use of kitchen sink tap and frequency of toilet ushing cause more variation in the water consumption. 5.6. Corrected water end-uses From the sensitivity analysis shown previously, the water end-uses were corrected. In A block, whose estimated water consumption was lower than the actual water

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2518 E. Ghisi, D.F. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 25122522
60 Water consumption variation (%) 40 20 0 -6 -4 -2 -20 Flat 102-B Block -40 Flat 303-C Block -60 Variation on time of use of kitchen sink tap (minutes) 0 2 4 6

Table 8 Difference between actual and estimated water consumption Consumption Water consumption (litres/capita per day) A block Actual Estimated Difference (%) 179.1 166.3 7.1 B block 133.3 197.8 +48.4 C block 141.4 152.8 +8.1

60 Water consumption variation (%) 40 20 0

Water consumption variation (%)

Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis on time of use of kitchen sink tap.

60

-6

-4

-2 -20

4 Flat 102-B Block

A Block B Block C Block Average

40 20 0

-40

Flat 303-C Block

-60 Variation on duration of shower (minutes)

-6

-4

-2 -20 -40

Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis on duration of shower.

60 Water consumption variation (%) 40 20 0 -3 -2 -1 -20 Flat 102-B Block -40 Flat 303-C Block -60 Variation on frequency of toilet flushing (times) 0 1 2 3

-60 Variation on duration of shower (minutes)

Fig. 8. Sensitivity analysis on duration of shower.

60
A Block

Water consumption variation (%)

B Block C Block Average

40 20 0

-3

-2

-1 -20 -40

Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis on frequency of toilet ushing.

60 Water consumption variation (%) 40 20 0 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 -20 Flat 102-B Block -40
Water consumption variation (%)
-60 Variation on frequency of toilet flushing (times)

Fig. 9. Sensitivity analysis on frequency of toilet ushing.

0.2

0.4

0.6
60
A Block B Block C Block Average

Flat 303-C Block

40 20 0

-60 Variation on toilet water flow rate (litres/s)

Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis on toilet water ow rate.

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2 -20 -40

0.2

0.4

0.6

consumption, the difference was assumed to be due to the toilet ushing. In B block, as the difference between the estimated and the actual water consumption was very high (48.4%), such a difference was distributed proportionally between toilet ushing and kitchen sink tap. As for C

-60 Variation on toilet water flow rate (litres/s)

Fig. 10. Sensitivity analysis on toilet water ow rate.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Ghisi, D.F. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 25122522
60 Water consumption variation (%)
B Block C Block Average

2519

25 Potential for potable water savings (%) 20 15 10 5 0 A Block B Block C Block 0 10000 20000 30000 Rainwater tank capacity (litres) 40000

A Block

40 20 0

-6

-4

-2 -20 -40

-60 Variation on time of use of kitchen sink tap (minutes)

Fig. 11. Sensitivity analysis on time of use of kitchen sink tap. Table 9 Corrected water end-uses for each block Activity Water end-uses (%) A block Toilet ushing Washing up Shower Lavatory Clothes washing Cleaning Cooking Total (litres/capita per day) 35.1 33.6 16.2 10.5 2.0 2.1 0.4 179.1 B block 29.7 12.1 23.2 23.4 5.9 4.5 1.2 133.3 C block 34.8 14.0 28.6 14.0 6.0 1.9 0.7 141.4 Average 33.2 19.9 22.6 16.0 4.7 2.9 0.8 151.3

Fig. 12. Rainwater tank capacities and potential for potable water savings for A, B and C blocks.

Table 11 Rainwater tank capacity and potable water savings Tank position Tank capacity (l) Potable water savings (%) B block 15.6 C block 17.7

A block B block C block A block Lower Upper 10,000 3000 10,000 3000 10,000 3000 14.7

Table 10 Input data for the Neptune computer programme Input data Roof area (m ) Runoff coefcient (non-dimensional) Number of residents per at Daily potable water consumption (litres/capita per day) Number of ats per block Percentage of potable water that can be replaced by rainwater (toilet ushing, clothes washing and cleaning)
2

A block 324.0 0.85 2.25 179.1 16.0 39.2

B block 324.0 0.85 2.67 133.3 17.0 40.1

C block 324.0 0.85 2.33 141.4 16.0 42.7

block, the difference was assumed to be due to the kitchen sink tap. Corrected water end-uses are shown in Table 9.

5.7. Tank capacities 5.7.1. Rainwater tank capacities Having obtained the water end-uses, it was then possible to estimate the rainwater tank capacities for each block by using the Neptune computer programme. Table 10 shows the input data used to run Neptune. It was assumed that potable water can be replaced by rainwater for toilet ushing, clothes washing and cleaning.

Fig. 12 shows the results obtained from the simulations. These are the potential for potable water savings as a function of the tank capacity. As explained in the methodology, the rainwater tank capacities were chosen when the potential for potable water savings increased 0.5% or less by increasing the tank capacity in 1000 litres. Therefore, 9000, 10,000, and 11,000 litres were the tank capacities chosen for A, B and C blocks, respectively. In order to consider the tank capacities available in the local market, 10,000-litre tanks were adopted for each of the three blocks. As for the upper tanks, their capacities were estimated as a function of the percentage of potable water that can be replaced by rainwater. These are shown in the last line of Table 10, and when converted to litres, range from 2250.9 to 2527.5 litres. Therefore, 3000-litre tanks are enough to store the daily demand for rainwater. Table 11 shows the tank capacities and the respective potable water savings that may be obtained by using rainwater in each block. It can be noticed that the potable water savings that can be actually obtained are signicantly lower (14.717.7%; from Fig. 12) than the potential for potable water savings by using rainwater in the blocks (39.242.7%). 5.7.2. Greywater tank capacities When only greywater is considered, the percentage of water that can be reused (from shower, lavatory and clothes washing) and the percentage of water used for toilet ushing are obtained from the estimated water end-uses. Table 12 shows the relevant data for this analysis.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2520 E. Ghisi, D.F. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 25122522
12 Potential for potable water savings (%) 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 10000 20000 30000 Rainwater tank capacity (litres) 40000 A Block B Block C Block

Table 12 Data used to estimate the greywater tank capacities Input data Daily potable water consumption (litres/capita per day) Number of residents per at Number of ats per block Sum of water end-uses from shower, lavatory and clothes washing (%) Water end-use from toilet ushing (%) Volume of greywater to be stored (l) A block 179.1 2.25 16.0 28.7 35.1 1850.5 B block 133.3 2.67 17.0 52.5 29.7 1797.0 C block 141.4 2.33 16.0 48.6 34.8 1834.4

Fig. 13. Rainwater tank capacities and potential for potable water savings for A, B and C blocks when greywater is also considered. Table 13 Greywater tank capacities Tank position Tank capacity (l) Potable water savings (%) B block 29.7 C block 34.8

Table 15 Rainwater and greywater tank capacities

Source Tank Tank capacity (l) Potable water savings (%) position A block B block C block A block B block C block 5000 3000 2000 2000 5000 3000 2000 2000 5000 3000 2000 2000 8.0 28.7 36.7 8.2 29.7 37.9 7.2 34.8 42.0

A block B block C block A block Lower Upper 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 28.7

Table 14 Input data for Neptune when greywater and rainwater are considered together Input data Daily potable water consumption (litres/capita per day) Number of residents per at Number of ats per block Potential for potable water savings by reusing greywater (%) [P1] Percentage of potable water that can be replaced by rainwater (toilet ushing, clothes washing and cleaning) (%) [P2] Percentage of potable water that can be replaced by rainwater when already reusing greywater (%) [P2P1] A block 179.1 2.25 16.0 28.7 39.2 B block 133.3 2.67 17.0 29.7 40.1 C block 141.4 2.33 16.0 34.8 42.7

Rainwater Lower Upper Greywater Lower Upper Total

10.5

10.4

7.9

It can be observed that in A block, the available greywater (28.7%) is lower than the amount of water needed for toilet ushing (35.1%); the opposite is obtained for B and C blocks. Therefore, the volume of greywater to be stored in each block was estimated by considering 28.7%, 29.7% and 34.8% of daily potable water consumption. Table 13 shows the greywater tank capacities selected according to market availability. Such a capacity is enough to store the volume of greywater needed for toilet ushing (1797.01850.5 litres). By adopting 2000-litre tanks, the potential for potable water savings by using greywater are 28.7%, 29.7% and 34.8% in A, B and C blocks, respectively.

5.7.3. Rainwater and greywater tank capacities When considering rainwater and greywater together, the rainwater demand is lower than the gures shown in Section 5.7.1. As for greywater, there is no change from what was shown in Section 5.7.2 as rainwater is used to complement the water demand. Table 14 shows the relevant data needed to run Neptune to obtain the new rainwater tank capacities for this new scenario. Fig. 13 shows the results obtained from the simulations using Neptune. The rainwater tank capacities were again obtained as described previously. Therefore, rainwater tank capacities of 5000, 5000 and 4000 litres would be needed for A, B and C blocks, respectively. Table 15 shows the rainwater and greywater tank capacities adopted according to market availability for the scenario in which rainwater and greywater are used together, and the respective potential for potable water savings. 5.8. Costs By consulting the local stores, costs were estimated. Tables 1618 show the costs for each of the three systems. 5.9. Payback period By applying the methodology described in Section 4, the payback period was estimated for each block and each system. Table 19 shows the results and the relevant data needed to obtain the payback periods. It can be observed that the greywater system is the more cost effective,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
E. Ghisi, D.F. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 25122522 Table 16 Rainwater system costs Material Water pump 3 4 HP 3000-litre tank 10,000-litre tank Labour Electricity to operate pumps Pipes and connections Total cost per block Total cost Unity costs (R$) 400.00 550.00 1750.00 R$ 8.00/h R$ 0.337220/kW h 15% from total costs Quantity 2 1 1 80 h 4 h/day Total (R$) 800.00 550.00 1750.00 640.00 56.87 569.53 4366.40 13,099.20 2521

Table 17 Greywater system costs Material Water pump 3 4 HP 2000-litre tank Wetland system Labour Electricity to operate pumps Pipes and connections Total cost per block Total cost Unity costs (R$) 400.00 385.00 R$ 49.00/m2 R$ 8.00/h R$ 0.337220/kW h 15% from total costs Quantity 2 2 32 m2/block 80 h 4 h/day Total (R$) 800.00 770.00 1536.33 640.00 56.87 570.48 4373.68 13,121.00

Table 18 Rainwater and greywater system costs Material Water pump 3 4 HP 2000-litre tank 3000-litre tank 5000-litre tank Labour Electricity to operate pumps Wetland system Pipes and connections Total cost per block Total cost Unity costs (R$) 400.00 385.00 550.00 1020.00 R$ 8.00/h R$ 0.337220/kW h R$ 49.00/m2 15% from total costs Quantity 4 2 1 1 160 h 8 h/day 32 m2/block Total (R$) 1600.00 770.00 550.00 1020.00 1280.00 113.74 1536.33 910.51 6980.58 20,941.70

Table 19 Payback period for each of the three systems Data Rainwater A block Potable water savings (%) Total costs (R$) Number of ats Days per month Water demand (m3/day per block) Water demand (m3/month per at) Potable water costs (R$/month per at) Potable water costs (R$/month per block) New potable water demand (m3/month per at) New potable water costs (R$/month per at) New potable water costs (R$/month per block) Savings (R$/month per block) Payback (years) 14.7 4366.40 16 30 6.4 12.0 41.40 662.40 10.2 31.76 508.18 154.22 2.4 B block 15.6 4366.40 17 30 6.1 10.8 34.97 594.56 9.1 30.69 521.73 72.83 5.0 C block 17.7 4366.40 16 30 5.3 10.0 30.69 491.04 8.2 30.69 491.04 0.00 None Greywater A block 28.7 4373.68 16 30 6.4 12.0 41.40 662.40 8.6 30.69 491.04 171.36 2.1 B block 29.7 4373.68 17 30 6.1 10.8 34.97 594.56 7.6 30.69 521.73 72.83 5.0 C block 34.8 4373.68 16 30 5.3 10.0 30.69 491.04 6.5 30.69 491.04 0.00 None Rainwater+Greywater A block 36.7 6980.58 16 30 6.4 12.0 41.40 662.40 7.6 30.69 491.04 171.36 3.4 B block 37.9 6980.58 17 30 6.1 10.8 34.97 594.56 6.7 30.69 521.73 72.83 8.0 C block 42.0 6980.58 16 30 5.3 10.0 30.69 491.04 5.8 30.69 491.04 0.00 None

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2522 E. Ghisi, D.F. Ferreira / Building and Environment 42 (2007) 25122522

followed closely by the rainwater system. The system that considers rainwater and greywater together is the least cost effective, but should be considered as the payback periods are not too high. As for C block, none of the systems are cost effective because the water consumption is 10 m3 per month per at. When using rainwater and greywater either separately or together, the potable water consumption becomes lower than 10 m3, but the water utility calculates the water costs assuming a consumption of 10 m3. Therefore, there will not be nancial savings in C block. 6. Conclusions The potential for potable water savings by using rainwater and greywater either separately or together was estimated for a four-storey residential building composed polis, southern Brazil. of three blocks, located in Floriano An economic analysis was also performed in order to evaluate which system would be more cost effective. By estimating the water end-uses, it was possible to notice that the percentage of potable water that could be replaced by rainwater in A, B and C blocks was 39.2%, 40.1%, and 42.7%, respectively. However, by performing computer simulations considering local rainfall, the potential for potable water savings is reduced to 14.7%, 15.6% and 17.7%, respectively, in A, B and C blocks by adopting lower rainwater tank capacities of 10,000 litres. When only greywater is considered, the potential for potable water savings by using greywater for toilet ushing was 28.7%, 29.7% and 34.8%, respectively, in A, B and C blocks by adopting lower greywater tank capacities of 2000 litres. When rainwater and greywater were considered together, the potential for potable water savings was higher than the previous ones; they were 36.7%, 37.9% and 42.0% in A, B and C blocks, respectively. By performing the economic analysis, it was shown that using either rainwater or greywater separately, the payback period would be lower than 5 years. Greywater alone would be a little more cost effective than rainwater. By using rainwater and greywater together, the payback period would be higher, but still cost effective. Therefore, in buildings similar to the one analysed in this research any of the three systems would be cost effective if the potable water consumption of each at were higher than 10 m3 per month. This differs from what was obtained for the two houses studied in Ref. [16], where none of the three systems were cost effective. Acknowledgements Dr. E. Ghisi would like to thank CAPESFundac -a o vel Coordenac -a o de Aperfeic - oamento de Pessoal de N Superior, an agency of the Brazilian Government for post-graduate education, for the scholarship (ProDoc) that allowed him to supervise this research.

References
[1] Villarreal EL, Dixon A. Analysis of a rainwater collection system for domestic water supply in Ringdansen, Norrko ping, Sweden. Building and Environment 2005;40(9):117484. [2] Herrmann T, Schmida U. Rainwater utilisation in Germany: efciency, dimensioning, hydraulic and environmental aspects. Urban Water 1999;1(4):30716. [3] Fewkes A. The use of rainwater for WC ushing: the eld testing of a collection system. Building and Environment 1999;34(6):76572. [4] March JG, Gual M, Orozco F. Experiences on greywater re-use for toilet ushing in a hotel (Mallorca Island, Spain). Desalination 2004;164(3):2417. [5] Ghisi E, Montibeller A, Schmidt RW. Potential for potable water savings by using rainwater: an analysis over 62 cities in southern Brazil. Building and Environment 2006;41(2):20410. [6] Ghisi E. Potential for potable water savings by using rainwater in the residential sector of Brazil. Building and Environment 2006;41(11): 154450. [7] Ghisi E, Bressan DL, Martini M. Rainwater tank capacity and potential for potable water savings by using rainwater in the residential sector of southeastern Brazil. Building and Environment, in press, Corrected Proof, Available online 3 April 2006. [8] Al-Jayyousi OR. Greywater reuse: towards sustainable water management. Desalination 2003;156(13):18192. [9] Nolde E. Greywater reuse for toilet ushing in multi-storey buildingsover ten years experience in Berlin. Urban Water 1999; 1(4):27584. [10] Christova-Boal D, Eden RE, McFarlane S. As investigation into greywater reuse for urban residential properties. Desalination 1996;106(13):3917. [11] Friedler E, Hadari M. Economic feasibility of on-site greywater reuse in multi-storey buildings. Desalination 2006;190(13):22134. [12] Prathapar SA, Jamrah A, Ahmed M, Al Adawi S, Al Sidairi S, Al Harassi A. Overcoming constraints in treated greywater reuse in Oman. Desalination 2005;186(13):17786. [13] Al-Jayyousi O R. Greywater reuse: towards sustainable water management. Desalination 2003;156(13):18192. [14] Dixon A. Computer simulation of domestic water re-use systems: greywater and rainwater in Combination. PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London, 2000. [15] Dixon A, Butler D, Fewkes A. Water saving potential of domestic water recycling systems using greywater and rainwater in combination. Water Science and Technology 1999;39(5):2532. [16] Ghisi E, Oliveira SM. Potential for potable water savings by combining the use of rainwater and greywater in houses in southern Brazil. Building and Environment, in press, Corrected Proof, Available online 24 March 2006. gicas (19611990). Ministe rio da Agricul[17] BRASIL. Normais Climatolo ria. Secretaria Nacional de Irrigac tura e Reforma Agra -a o, Departamento Nacional de Meteorologia, Bras lia, 1992 [Climatic data for 19611990, Meteorology Information Agency of Brazil] [in Portuguese]. ` s cie [18] Barbetta PA. Estat stica aplicada a ncias sociais. Ed. UFSC, polis, 2003 [Statistics Applied to Social Sciences] [in Portuguese]. Floriano cnicas. NBR 5626 [19] ABNT Associac -a o Brasileira de Normas Te gua fria, Rio de Janeiro, 1998 [Brazilian Instalac -a o predial de a Association for Standards, NBR 5626Cold water building installation] [in Portuguese]. gua em edif cios pu [20] Kammers PC, Ghisi E. Usos nais de a blicos polis-SC [Water end-uses in public buildings localizados em Floriano polis-SC]. Ambiente Constru do 2006;6(1):7590 located in Floriano [in Portuguese]. Available at /http://www.antac.org.br/ambientecon struido/S. s ACR. Netunoaproveitamento de a guas pluviais no [21] Ghisi E, Tre setor residencial. 2004 [Neptunea computer programme to evaluate potable water savings and rainwater tank capacity in the residential sector] [in Portuguese].