# A Review on the Performance of Concrete Containing Non-Potable Water
## 5 Hardened Properties
### Compressive Strength
#### 5.1.3 Effect of Various Types of Wastewaters on Compressive Strength  
The composition of WW depends on its source; therefore, the characteristics of WW concrete will significantly fluctuate if industrial and domestic WW are derived from different sources and demographics. The compressive strength of most WW concrete relative to potable water concrete reported in different studies is shown in Figure 9. It can be seen that both positive and negative effects of WW on the strength of concrete can be expected. [PERSON] et al. (2010) reported that textile factory WW show an increase in compressive strength, while sugar and fertilizer factory WW shows a minor effect on compressive strength. They reported that fluorides and bicarbonate present in textile WW react with alumina leading forming calcium fluoroaduminates that contribute to strength enhancement.  
Figure 8: Histogram of relative compressive strength of concrete made with treated WW _versus_ no. of occurrences.  
Figure 7: The effect of treated WW on the compressive strength of concrete reported in different studies.  
Any evidence based on chemical and microstructural analysis is not documented yet. Due to the presence of activator salts in both fertilizer and textile WW, the early-age strength of concrete increased [10]. [PERSON] [13] reported that WW containing 5% and 10% salts lead to higher strengths than potable water concrete at 28-days. However, no justifications were presented for this important development. On the other hand, a notable decline in compressive strength was observed when oil WW was used. Stone slurry WW improved the compressive strength by almost 20%. This could be attributed to the high mineral content that acts as a filler and it may decrease the water/binder ratio. WW from the tanning industry reduced compressive strength by 7%. As the tanning industry WW is highly acidic, it is expected to increase the strength-gaining period of concrete.  
[PERSON] and [PERSON] [14] reported that the replacement of potable water with polyvinyl acetate WW does not have adverse effects on compressive strength. Polyvinyl acetate WW concrete showed slightly higher compressive strength than potable water concrete at seven and twenty-eight days. It was hypothesized that polyvinyl acetate WW improved the density due to the lubrication effect of polymer particles that caused an improvement in compressive strength. [PERSON] and [PERSON] et al. [27] reported that concrete made with WW mixed with bacterial solutions (_Bacillus cereus_) can yield 20% higher compressive strength than concrete made with conventional potable water. The main reason for this behaviour was the formation of CaCO\({}_{3}\) by bacterial filling the voids. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [11] studied concrete with reverse osmosis water, river water, and sugar factory WW. They reported that reverse osmosis water produced concrete with 6% higher strength than potable water concrete. River water reduced the compressive strength by 26%. Sugar factory WW reduced the compressive strength by 40%. However, no reason was presented for the detrimental effects of river water and sugar factory WW. [PERSON] et al. [9] studied concrete with heavy industry and palm-oil mill WW. They reported that heavy industry WW improved the compressive strength by 8-13% due to the presence of heavy solids and chlorides, while palm-oil mill WW contained organic impurities that reduced the 28-days compressive strength of concrete by 16%.  
Figure 9: Compressive strength of different WW concrete relative to that of tap water or potable water concrete.