Waterless Urinals

My enter finger was to quick...

In our "green" world the thought of waterless urinals has come up and in my search for sanitary information I have found conflicting research.

One side says they are more sanitary because they are touchless and the lack of water prevents micro breeding.

The other side says that without water micro hazards are not "flushed away" and gas is allowed to come back through the urinal.

Any thoughts from anyone or is anyone using waterless urinals in a food facility?

My enter finger was to quick...

I got rid of that one for you.

Has anyone got experience of waterless urinals to share with tsmith7858 ?

Thanks Simon.

Not much response so far, I guess it is not that common for people.

I read a brochure for waterless urinals but they don´t really sound very hygienic. From what I remember, the urine falls into a kind of trap. I wouldn´t want any urine trapped anywhere, even if it´s under a layer of disinfectant.
Some guys here are not very careful about flushing after using the urinals, so the urinal walls tend to get stains, and then you get these really bad smells from what stays on these walls.
In conclusion, I don´t think I would buy them.

Thanks Simon.

Not much response so far, I guess it is not that common for people.

Yes I agree. I don't have any experience but was wondering about the driving force for wanting to change from conventional to waterless urinals. Even if waterless urinals are effective in terms of being sanitary and not stinking etc. (which is debated) exactly how much water is saved per year from this added cost. Is it worth the time, effort and cost? I don't know. Are there other areas in the business where larger environemental gains can be had for less time, effort and cost? In every room why not put lights on sensors that go out when nobody is in the room. General 'save it' awareness campaigns for turning off lights, computers, screens, taps (fawcets), using less, reusing, recycling, collecting and separating waste, useing one sheet of toilet tissue instead of two. Sorry about that last one but you get the picture.

Regards,
Simon

Simon,

We have started a lot of other programs and have a large customer that is very prominent in the whole sustainability area. Lights out was at the top of the list and IT has set all of our computers to hibernate when not in use and not turned off. We are starting to recycle paper. We are also looking at re-using steam energy from our boilers.

For our size facility some calculate as much as 40,000 gal of water per year can be saved with a water less urinal. A more conservative figure is around 25,000 gal.

Depnding where you are from that is a lot of water and a lot of dollars.

To be honest I didn't realise quite how much water was used in urinals. What number of people does 25,000 - 40,000 gallons relate to roughly?

Urinals work at .5 - 3 gal per flush with <1 gal consider a "low flow" urinal. I roughly based the numbers on the attached document from the US Army Corp of Engineers.

http://www.cecer.arm...RL_TN-06-03.pdf

It provides good information on benefits, savings and implemetation/maintenance of waterless urinals but not very good information on sanitation.

Our maintenance team adapted the urinals here so that they could be flushed with a pedal. Basically they took a piece of chain, a spring and a piece of metal (to make the pedal) and adapted it to the existing urinals.
They did this with the sinks, too. So now, there aren´t taps that are left open and there´s less risk of contamination. Plus, we spent less than US$10 per sink or urinal, when getting the pedal sinks would´ve cost us at least US$200.
Hope this helps.

dear tsmith,

Thks for this. Fascinating thread. The direct link in the pdf doesn't work for me although the site portion is ok, eg waterless.com.

The (anonymous) blue seal liquid referred looks pretty potent. Hope no incidents as sometime recorded for vacuum toilets. (the version with a block of "microbes" looks even more scary, despite the innovatory qualities))

slightly OT, apologies

And referring to Simon's post, I hv seen serious projects initiated to reduce use of toilet paper with rather inconvenience results. Discontinued after looking at cost saved. Also once had to approve the cost of hiring a diver to clear the lines due to - you can guess ladies !

Must say I hv yet to see this technology in any food manufacturing premises, waterless co. seem to only refer to the military as a customer

Rgds / Charles.C

Maybe a compromise would be something along the lines of MRios post, maybe we could reduce the frequency of flushes either by time or by number of visitors by using a sensor. That way we are reducing waste water to the minimum and maintaining sanitation.

By the way not sure if technologically possible.

Regards,
Simon

Just a note, all - I've used them before with no ill effects. No significant offensive odors. ALL urinals, toilets, and sinks have a P-trap or S-trap which blocks sewer gases. In terms of being sanitary, urine is (in most cases) sterile, and therefore it could be argued that dilution presents a greater risk. With regard to staining, buildup, etc, that's what a cleaning program is for. Have them cleaned at whatever frequency is required to prevent these issues.

Just my thoughts.

Just a note, all - I've used them before with no ill effects. No significant offensive odors. ALL urinals, toilets, and sinks have a P-trap or S-trap which blocks sewer gases. In terms of being sanitary, urine is (in most cases) sterile, and therefore it could be argued that dilution presents a greater risk. With regard to staining, buildup, etc, that's what a cleaning program is for. Have them cleaned at whatever frequency is required to prevent these issues.

Just my thoughts.

Good points, thanks for your input Jon. Although knowing the aim of some fellas it might be difficult to have a cleaning schedule with a frequency of 'once after every fella'.

Regards,
Simon

Jon,

Thanks for your input. I have seen a few sites commenting on the fact that urine is sterile and water may present more of a risk but there is never any data to support it either way.

Cleaning is certainly the key regardless of whether they are waterless or not.