This page addresses the outstanding issues involved the CCAT's greywater marsh.

Figure 1 - CCAT's greywater marsh.[1]

CCAT Background[edit | edit source]

The Campus Center for Appropriate Technology (CCAT), located on the south side of the Cal Poly Humboldt campus in Arcata, California, is designed as a laboratory for sustainability.[2] CCAT is a student run non-profit organization that acquired a house in 1978 and became an official Associated Students program in 1980.[2] The building was moved and remodeled in 2004.[2] After the building was completed in 2007, the student directors were able to move into the house and progress in creating a model of a sustainable home..[2] For the past 31 years, CCAT has been dedicated to demonstrating appropriate technology to HSU students and the surrounding community.[2] CCAT has been successful in spreading its information by connecting with over fifteen HSU courses per year and providing workshops, community projects, lectures, guest speakers, potlucks, volunteer workdays and much more.[2] One course that CCAT works with is ENGR115 Introduction to Environmental Engineering and Science.

Greywater - Defined[edit | edit source]

Greywater consists of all household effluent wastewater from bathtubs, showers, bathroom sinks and the washing of clothes not contaminated with human fecal matter. According to California's Health and Safety Code Section 17922.12, greywater means: 

				 "untreated wastewater that has not been contaminated by any
				 toilet discharge, has not been affected by infectious,
				 contaminated, or unhealthy bodily wastes, and does not present
				 a threat from contamination by unhealthful processing,
				 manufacturing, or operating wastes. Greywater includes but is
				 not limited to wastewater from bathtubs, showers, bathroom
				 washbasins, clothes washing machines, and laundry tubs,
				 but does not include wastewater from kitchen sinks or dishwashers."[3]

CCAT's Greywater Marsh[edit | edit source]

The current greywater marsh at CCAT, a sub-surface greywater treatment system[4] renovated in the spring of 2009, contains five main parts: surge tank, FOG catcher, marsh, testing tank and irrigation, as shown in Figure 3.

  • Figure 2 - The current status of the CCAT greywater marsh. Photo by Ben Stern

    Figure 2 - The current status of the CCAT greywater marsh. Photo by Ben Stern

  • Figure 3 - Drawing of greywater system and its five parts.[1]

    Figure 3 - Drawing of greywater system and its five parts.[1]

Surge Tank[edit | edit source]

The outlet of the house's plumbing discharges greywater into a surge tank, as shown Figure 4, which prevents back flow of greywater into the house. The inlet to the surge tank has a shutoff valve, allowing the greywater to be diverted to the city sewer if a problem occurs in the greywater system. The surge tank is equipped with a filter, as shown on top of the surge tank in Figure 4. The filter is designed to remove larger solids while allowing greywater to be gravity fed to the second part of the treatment process, the settling tank.

  • Figure 4 - Top view of surge tank connected to the house plumbing. The filtering mechanism has been pulled out and placed on top. Photo by Ben Stern

    Figure 4 - Top view of surge tank connected to the house plumbing. The filtering mechanism has been pulled out and placed on top. Photo by Ben Stern

FOG Catcher/Settling Tank[edit | edit source]

The settling tank, or fat oil and grease (FOG) catcher, as shown in Figure 5, contains a baffle that traps FOG, preventing FOG from entering the marsh. The settling tank slows the flow rate of the greywater to allow the settling of solids and sediment into the bottom of the tank before flowing into the marsh.

  • Figure 5 - Top view of the current FOG catcher. Photo by Ben Stern

    Figure 5 - Top view of the current FOG catcher. Photo by Ben Stern

Marsh[edit | edit source]

The marsh allows the greywater to flow through gravel that contains five alternating baffles, as shown in Figure 6. The marsh is used for secondary treatment, in which plant roots encourage microbial growth that break down organic matter reducing the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). The gravel traps the remaining particulates that passed through the settling tank, which reduces the amount of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The greywater is then funneled into the testing tank.

  • Figure 6 - Side view drawing of the baffles in the greywater marsh.[1]

    Figure 6 - Side view drawing of the baffles in the greywater marsh.[1]

Testing Tank[edit | edit source]

The greywater testing tank allows access to the treated greywater for water quality testing. It also contains a pipe that can be adjusted to change the height of the greywater in the marsh. Altering greywater height is necessary for healthy root growth in the marsh plants.

Irrigation System[edit | edit source]

The greywater then passes through the perforated pipe of the gravity fed irrigation system, as shown in Figure 7, for the CCAT landscaping. The perforated pipe allows for even distribution of the greywater, preventing any pools that could settle and cause bacterial growth. The plants receiving the greywater are water loving and alkaline tolerant, including an apple tree, a current bush, an evergreen huckleberry, two rose bushes, a coffeeberry, and monkey flowers. The plants are allowed for human consumption because the fruits do not come into direct contact with the greywater and the high abundance of organic matter (mulch and compost) in the soil consumes any leftover bacteria from the greywater.[5]More detailed information and a diagram of the whole system layout can be found on the CCAT greywatermarsh (current)]][1] webpage on Appropedia.

  • Figure - 7: General layout of the underground gravity fed irrigation system, which terminates the greywater system.[1]

    Figure - 7: General layout of the underground gravity fed irrigation system, which terminates the greywater system.[1]

Greywater Marsh Problems[edit | edit source]

There are several problems with the design and efficiency of the current CCAT greywater marsh system that was implemented in the spring of 2009. The problems have included filtrating of solids, FOG collection, standing water, and maintenance.

Filtering of Solids[edit | edit source]

The CCAT greywater system is unique because it includes greywater from the kitchen sink, which has a high concentration of particulate matter due to food scraps. The high concentration of particulate matter increases the BOD.[6]Under normal circumstance the inclusion of the kitchen sink would not be acceptable under California law, but CCAT is on a university campus and their marsh is considered experimental. There is currently only one filter, as shown in Figure 8, made from a small trash receptacle equipped with a small one millimeter metal screen. The filter attaches inside the surge tank to the outlet pipe. The filter has oxidized creating the build-up of rust, which has decreased the diameter of the holes on the filter. The rust build-up lets small solids and dried FOG clog the bottom part of the filter. The metal screen has also broken away from the plastic trash receptacle as shown in Figure 8. The broken filter allows large amounts of particulates to pass through the filter into the settling/FOG tank. The particulates pass rapidly through the settling/FOG tank into the marsh because the baffle in the settling tank does not decrease the flow of greywater enough to allow the particulates to settle out. These particulates build up in the marsh and eventually block the flow of greywater through the marsh.[4]

Figure 8 - Current corroded filter mechanism that is clogged with dried FOG and particulates. Photo by Ben Stern

FOG Collection[edit | edit source]

The FOG catcher in the CCAT greywater system is unable to function correctly due to the increased amount of FOG coming from the kitchen sink. The corroded and clogged filter in the surge tank is collecting most of the FOG, preventing FOG from flowing into the FOG catcher. Also the baffle in the FOG catcher, as shown in Figure 9, is unable to slow the flow of the greywater enough for the remaining FOG and particulates to settle and separate. The FOG coats the gravel in the marsh and prevents microbial activity from cleaning the greywater.

Figure 9 - Baffle designed to trap FOG and preventing it from entering the marsh. Photo by Ben Stern


Standing Water[edit | edit source]

The surge tank incorrectly acts as a settling/storage tank of the greywater, as shown in Figure 10. Standing water occurs because the bottom of the surge tank is lower than the outlet pipe, which does not allow all the water to exit through the gravity fed system. Also under CCAT's concrete driveway there is an upward bend in the outlet pipe leading to the settling/FOG tank. Without a constant and forceful flow of greywater through the system, water gets trapped in the surge tank and particulates settle and bacteria begins to grow, as shown in Figure 11. Greywater is considered blackwater (not reusable without intensive treatment) after twenty four hours of being stored. This consideration is due to high concentrations of particulate matter and FOG that increase the growth of harmful bacteria.[7] The potential risk of turning into blackwater makes standing water an issue with CCAT's greywater system.[8]

  • Figure 10 - This picture illustrates the presence of standing water found in the surge tank. Photo by Ben Stern

    Figure 10 - This picture illustrates the presence of standing water found in the surge tank. Photo by Ben Stern

  • Figure 11 - Bacterial growth, white clumps, in the surge tank due to standing water, 72 hours after marsh was closed. Photo by Ben Stern

    Figure 11 - Bacterial growth, white clumps, in the surge tank due to standing water, 72 hours after marsh was closed. Photo by Ben Stern

Hard to Clean[edit | edit source]

CCAT's greywater system is difficult and intensive to clean. Since the greywater system was designed to be gravity fed, much of the system is located at or below the surface of the ground. The location of the greywater system at or below ground makes the maintenance of the greywater system difficult. This YouTube video shows the detailed process of CCAT's greywater marsh maintenance. Cleaning the tanks of the greywater system is not a pleasant job, but is necessary in order to have an efficient and operational system. According to the YouTube video the surge tank and FOG catcher and their filters need to be cleaned twice a month. However, due to the standing water, corroded filters and the use of sink water in the CCAT system, the tanks should be cleaned near twice a week. The height of the pipe in the collection tank should also be adjusted about every three months to allow the whole system to drain and be cleaned.

Current Improvement Efforts[edit | edit source]

Currently two groups in Engineering 215 - Intro to Design at Cal Poly Humboldt are in the process of designing solutions to the issues of removing particulate matter from the kitchen sink and improving the FOG catcher.

Figure 12 - Outside view of Pizza Box under CCAT's kitchen sink.[9]

Kitchen effluent particulate filter[edit | edit source]

Team ECO-PLUMBERS[9] which includes William Brown, Charles Flower III, and Zack Chandler, are in the process of designing a filtration system, The Pizza Box as shown in Figure 12, that will fit under the kitchen sink.[9]The filtration system will be composed of two filters of different sizes in a compact box.

Figure 13 - The location and design of the filters within the Pizza Box. Diagram from Team ECO-PLUMBERS


  • First: The kitchen sink water will flow through a plastic PVC box with a hinged, rubber sealed, water tight PVC door. Inside the box will be a filter made of 1/4 inch plastic with 3/16 inch holes drilled 3/4 of an inch apart. This filter will remove all of the large food particles that would quickly clog a finer screen.[9]


  • Second: The greywater will then pass through a second filter which is very similar to the first but with a finer stainless steel screen, donated by the Tofu Shop in Arcata. This filter is located directly below the larger filter, as shown in Figure 13.[9]


Greywater FOG Collection and Maintenance[edit | edit source]

Currently a group in ENGR 215, VuTastic, consisting of Vu Tran, Tim Kukuk, Aaron Perez are developing reasonable solutions to the problems created by the FOG catcher.[10] Their design, Switch and Swap, involves adding cement to the bottom of the surge tank to match the level of the outlet pipe, as shown in Figure 14.[10] The added cement will help decrease the standing water in the surge tank and allow the FOG to travel to a new FOG catcher, as shown in Figure 14.[10] They have purchased a new 35 gallon plastic barrel to replace the current FOG catcher.[10] This new barrel will be slanted slightly downhill and will consist of a baffle to trap the FOG at the surface of the flowing greywater.[10] The greywater will then flow under the baffle into the marsh as the system is designed.[10]

Figure 14-Surge Tank and FOG catcher modification.[10]

Recommendations[edit | edit source]

Raising the Surge Tank[edit | edit source]

Although team VuTastic's design includes adding concrete to the bottom of the surge tank, there is still the problem of the upward curve in the outlet pipe under the driveway. The upward curve in the pipe leading to the FOG catcher, only allows for water higher than the the curve level to flow through it resulting in the presence of standing water. Solutions to this problem are:

  • Raising the bottom of the surge tank and the outlet pipe to be slightly higher than the curve in the pipe
  • Adding a pump in the surge tank
  • Create a siphon (suction) system

Pressure Washing[edit | edit source]

Any greywater system is inevitably unsanitary because it is dealing with wastewater. Cleaning the system would be made easier if cleaned more frequently. One alternative to clean the system with minimal labor would be to regularly flush the system with clean water. The cleaning is also made difficult with the inadequate access to the system parts. This issue is difficult to address due to the design of the gravity fed system, which requires the tanks to be located below ground level.

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Payne, L., Medina, S., & Ebright, T. CCAT greywater marsh (current) - Appropedia: The sustainability wiki. Appropedia. Accessed online November 15, 2009, from https://www.appropedia.org/CCAT greywater marsh (current).
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Campus Center for Appropriate Technology. Cal Poly Humboldt. Accessed online November 15, 2009, from http://web.archive.org/web/20100629034647/http://www.humboldt.edu:80/~ccat
  3. ↑ California Graywater Code. Oasis Design: Grey Water Books, Ecological Design Information & Consulting. Accessed online November 25, 2009, from http://www.oasisdesign.net/greywater/law/california/currentcode/#code
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Watkins, C., & Graffman, L. Subsurface flow constructed wetland for greywater - Appropedia: The sustainability wiki. Appropedia. Accessed online November 15, 2009, from https://www.appropedia.org/Subsurface_flow_constructed_wetland_for_greywater
  5. ↑ Barker, Allen V., & English Jean E. Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Recycling Gray Water for Home Gardens. Accessed online December 9, 2009, from http://www.umassgreeninfo.org/fact_sheets/plant_culture/gray_water_for_gardens.html
  6. ↑ Davis, Mackenzie, and Susan Masten. Principles of Environmental Engineering and Science. McGraw Hill: New York, NY 2004.
  7. ↑ Ludwig, A. Common Greywater Mistakes and Preferred Practices. Oasis Design: Grey Water Books, Ecological Design Information & Consulting. Accessed online December 6, 2009, from http://www.oasisdesign.net/greywater/misinfo/index.htm
  8. ↑ Grey Water. Water Wise Systems. Accessed online November 25, 2009, from WaterWise Systems http://web.archive.org/web/20151024141127/http://www.waterwisesystems.com/grey-water
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Brown, W., Chandler, Z., & Flower, C. CCAT Kitchen effluent greywater filter - Appropedia: The sustainability wiki. Appropedia. Accessed online November 15, 2009, from https://www.appropedia.org/CCAT_Kitchen_effluent_particulate_filter
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 Kukuk, T., Perez, A., & Tran, V. CCAT greywater grease trap - Appropedia: The sustainability wiki. Appropedia. Accessed online November 15, 2009, from https://www.appropedia.org/Grease_trap#next_steps
Page data
Authors William D. Brown, Benjamin Richard Lattimore Stern, Beth Eschenbach
License CC-BY-SA-3.0
Language English (en)
What links here 10 pages
Impact 461
Created October 22, 2009 by William D. Brown
Modified June 8, 2023 by Felipe Schenone
Cite as William D. Brown, Benjamin Richard Lattimore Stern, Beth Eschenbach (2009–2023). "CCAT greywater marsh problems". Appropedia. Retrieved September 30, 2023.
API queries basic, semantic, html, files, more
Retrieved from "https://www.appropedia.org/w/index.php?title=CCAT_greywater_marsh_problems&oldid=739113"

Discussion[View | Edit]

David Bloch's Peer Evaluation[edit source]

1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience.

I think the target audience for this document is someone with a preliminary knowledge of the basics of engineering, chemistry, and biology. My only recommendation would be to either simplify or explain some of the processes you mention, like BOD and particulate matter. Basically, why are these problems? Assume you are communicating with high school students.


2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

The layout is good overall. However, there are a lot of pictures and they constrict the text toward the middle of the page, especially for someone viewing the page on a lower resolution monitor. I would recommend making your page so that a horizontal line anywhere on the page would never pass through two pictures, no matter how narrow the screen is.


3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings.

The headings are used effectively. I personally don’t like how the subheadings are bigger and bolder than the main headings, though.


4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs.

The topic sentences are excellent.


5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc)

Very few subjective adverbs and adjectives were used. Words like large were only used to describe large particles. My only recommendation would be to find (ctrl-f or cmd-f) words like very and many and just delete them. Overall, quite objective for a document dealing with a known problem.


6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner?

It is difficult to specifically make out what some of the photographs are of. Try taking more pictures, zoomed out a little bit more and making the pictures a tiny bit bigger.


7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures.

Figure numbers are used and the captions are effective.


8. If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand.

This is not an RCEA page.


9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?

I would like to know more about the effectiveness of the system in the past. Also, how often is it being used or not used? References are fine.


10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references?

There could be a few more links, so people could further expand their knowledge on topics you mention but do not cover extensively, like FOG filters, gravity feeding, BOD, etc.


11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed?

It is a little bit long. I think there is a lot of repeated material, maybe make the CCAT’s Greywater Marsh section more concise.


12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page?

The page has the banner and correct categories.


13. List the strengths of document

Lots of information.
Easy to navigate.
Easy to read.
Lots of pictures with good descriptions


14. List areas for improvement

Cluttered.
Too few numbers. (we’re engineers! We like numbers!)
Grammar!
Put it in perspective
Fix broken links


15. Overall comments

Overall a solid project. Again, I would include more numbers and statistics about this greywater system, and maybe even CCAT in general to put the whole thing in perspective. Also, you might want to say why it is so important for the system to be fixed, and what that would bring CCAT and the environment. I know you mentioned it briefly, but I think you should expand on it! Lastly, please fix grammar errors. Get rid of unnecessary sos and likes, and remember “their” is possessive! I know how tough it is to have a late meeting with someone, and then being able to find the time to put the information into the webpage. Other than your missing section, though, this page is a solid one and I learned a lot from it!

Peer Evaluation performed by David Bloch

Adam McGuire's peer eval[edit source]

1. Seems about right for an ERE student. There is some assumed knowledge of BOD. Maybe provide a link which explains the concept a bit more.

2. For the most part yes. The information under FOG catcher was already covered in the above “filtering of solids” heading.

3. Yes. Are the suggested solutions yours? FOG catcher seems to be already covered in the above heading. Maybe number the problems like you did in above sections, or use subheadings for those bullted points in other sections (overall the same method).

4.Under the main headings the topic sentences are well done for the most part. Whos suggentions are they for solving the problem of standing water and hard to clean? Make that clear.

5.Overall, pretty good. Just make clear the section about suggestions. I like how you make clear this is work being done by students. Are there any definitions for what is acceptable for flow rates, amount of standing water, etc. for greywater systems or are the problems justified by student goals?

6.They are but I am familiar with some of the components, such as piping, connections, perferated tubing, etc. Maybe a closer view of the surge tank.

7.Yes and they also have captions. Maybe just explain some materials, platic barrels, type of plumbing, and perhaps reasons for choice of materials. A concise conceptual drawing of a greywater system and its components as they are located in realtion to each other would be a nice addition.

8.It is a CCAT page.

9.Time line of projects/ solutions to addressed problems. Ways students might get involved. Greywater legal restrictions, residential regulations? There is a reference section.

10.There are links provided. The link to the current CCAT greywater system was particularly helpful. They do fit the technical nature of the project. The bibliography on the current CCAT greywater page had a number of appropriate citations.

11.It seems about right, a lot of writing not a lot of pics in the overall system section. Are there any other problems? Too much money to fix? How long will it be closed?

12.Yes, to both. Not an RCEA page.

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Clear headings and topic sentences. A number of pictures of the actual components. Good links and references, not hard to tell where you got the info.


14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) I would like a conceptual drawing/ layout of the greywater system as it exists at CCAT. Make clear who is suggesting the solutions under the “suggested solutions” heading. Include a section about possible problems in the future, similar to that on the current CCAT greywater appropedia page. If applicable include funding numbers and issues. Maybe include solutions as subheadings of each respective problem. List problems in order of importance


15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Nice job to this point. The end sections are a bit confusing, are you making the suggestions? Maybe include some more technical info, system capacity, flow rates, component dimensions, if possible. A overall conceptual layout would be a nice visual.

Grant Rico's Peer Edit[edit source]

gar25 @9:15pm Nov 4th, 2009


1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience.

  • The page seems to be targeted toward people who have some knowledge of a greywater system but those who stumble across the page should have a solid understanding of how a greywater system works. Good job on the hyperlinks, but maybe include a few more, this will help people look up things that they may not be familiar with.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

  • The information is very well formatted. The layout makes the information easy to find. Improvements to be made include bolding important words in the paragraphs. This will make it easier for people to find specific things within the webpage.

3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings.

  • Generally clear and specific headings. Under the “CCAT’s Greywater Marsh” heading, level 2 headings should be used instead of bullet points. Bulleted points usually imply a concise list, and should not be used in front of text that is more than 2 lines long. Also the “Filtering of Solids” heading is above the image and not above the corresponding text. The same bulleted list issue is also present under the “Kitchen effluent particle filter” heading. Also the words in the heading should be capitalized.

4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs.

  • Clear topic sentences for each paragraph have been provided for the most part. The first sentence of the “Filtering of Solids” subheading does not directly relate to the filtering of solids. Consider adding another sentence at the beginning that introduces what the filtering of solids is exactly.

5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc)

  • Very objective writing. At the very end of the “Standing Water” subheading and the very beginning of the “Hard to Clean” subheading, the phrase: “big issue” is used twice. Just use “issue”, it says the same thing in a more objective fashion.

6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner?

  • The caption of Figure 1.1 has the word ‘to’ twice in a row. Effective and appropriate use of images. One suggestion of another image would be a diagram of a greywater system. This will make it much easier to visualize how it works and what is being discussed on your page.

7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures.

  • The images are referred to in the text using the figure numbers. When referring to a figure in the text, capitalize the word ‘figure’, it is a title. The captions are clear and specific.

8. If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand.

9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?

  • This was briefly mentioned in the fifth bullet point of the CCAT’s Greywater Marsh heading, but I would like there to be more of an emphasis on what is done with the final greywater. Also you should address what the benefits of using a greywater system are.

10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references?

  • The ENGR 115 link in the “CCAT Background” section does not work. It takes me to a ‘404 not found’ page. Also when I tried to go to the YouTube link on greywater marsh maintenance it did not function. It takes me to YouTube but at the top there is a red box that says ‘The URL contained a malformed video ID’. There is clear relevance for each site and there is a summary of references section.

11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed?

  • Appropriate length for the document. Could possibly be a little bit longer, but not much.

12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page?

  • Yes, has all categories and the links are functioning.


13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The appearance of the page is very well executed. The images are balanced between both sides and the headings help break up and organize the monotony that there would be of just having text. The organization and formatting of the page may be one of the best aspects. There is very effective use of headings and subheadings making information convenient to navigate for anyone who reads this page. Great job on presenting the overall content, someone who has never heard of a greywater system would leave the page with a good idea of what it is and how it works. Good job on the summary of references, this adds a lot of credibility to your page.


14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) These are the things that I personally think need to be improved:

• Fix the YouTube and ENGR 115 links that aren’t working

• Add bold words. Read Jakob Nielsen's article on writing a web page, he does a good job of explaining why this is important.

• Fix the “Filtering of Solids” heading. It is staggered above the image.

• The “Kitchen effluent particle filter” and “CCAT’s Greywater Marsh” bulleted lists should be changed into subheadings.

• Maybe add a bit more detail to sections here and there, your webpage could be slightly longer. But do not add too much.

• Read over your entire document and think about how you could write each sentence in a more objective writing style. Most sentences are very good but there are a few that could be improved.

• You should re-read the last sentence of the second bulletpoint under the “CCAT’s Greywater Marsh” heading. I think you meant to say “… are scooped out regularly.”

• Talk more about what is done with the finished greywater and why it is good for the environment to use greywater systems.


15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Overall excellent job, this page is defiantly one of the better pages that I have seen. Good job on explaining what a greywater system is and what it does. One thing I wish that had been emphasized more is the benefits of greywater systems and why they should be used.

Feel free to email me if you have any questions.

gar25 @9:15pm Nov 4th, 2009

Nathen Theobald's peer reveiw[edit source]

1. The target audience in this case would be anyone who has any interest in sustainable waste ‘gray’ water treatment. Though this page does seem more aimed toward engineering student, or a more technical audience than just the general public Writing is simple enough to understand easily, except for a few terms.

2. Easily navigable. Reasonably logical layout.

3. The headings are clear. Order is great. Maybe split the various parts of the system up into subheadings for ease of skimming. Some of it seems to be formatted differently, make formatting uniform and consistant.

4. The majority of the content has clear topic sentences. A few could be refined. Ideas are organized quite well.

5. Use more simple language. The page may be technical, just avoid unnecessary wordiness

6. Maybe point out important points on the picture.make picture format a little more uniform maybe?

7. Good job using figure numbers. Could link more. Figures have captions

8.

9. Yes, clearly cited. Sources clearly referenced

10. There are links. Could be more. Like maybe to the page of another greywater system

11. Document is good as far as length is concerned. Topics are covered and relatively complete

12. The warning is there. Engr115 present as well

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

- Great Start

- Good content

- Well organized

14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

- Layout of pictures

- Wording

- Conventions and grammar. → basic revisions

15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors)

Great start. Perfect length. Good content. Well organized. Good first draft. Elaborate on what you have

Add topic
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.