Elisabeth - For what its worth I was referring to a term we could all use for marketing, media, product labels, etc. I think we'd all agree that this sector is not wanting for more wonky names for these materials. But what we don't have are unique, "sexy" and label-friendly terms for 1) "faecal sludge" or "finished compost" (as in the fully processed "retail-ready" combination of fecal, urine and wiping/cover material that's been culled from a composting toilet or the fully processed "retail-ready" feces and wiping/cover material that's been culled from a UDDT) or 2) "urine" (as in fully processed "retail-ready" urine that's been culled from a UDDT).

To reiterate, I'm a fan so far of DavidAlan's "Biosoil" as a replacement for the materials described in #1 above. But what about a new term for the retail-ready material described in #2?

Yes, it is a good use of the logo. It would be good if we could have a name that encompasses both solids and liquids.

Oooh, I really like DavidAlan's "biosoil". I particularly like how it kind of thumbs its nose at "biosolids" - after all it's kind of a close term - but it uses "soil" which implies something natural and organic (organic in the carbon sense) rather than "solids" which, in my opinion, is rigid and almost meaningless. "Biosoil" gets my vote! Now, what about a new name for standalone urine? "Bioliquid"?

Hajo - Did you create these? I like the use of the universal recycling logo but I worry that "UDDT" is still too wonky. In comparison, the sludge industry went from "sludge" to "biosolids". So, I'm wondering what we can come up with - like were we to go from "poop" to "_________"; or "feces" to "_______"; or "excreta" to "________"; or "fecal sludge" to "__________"; or "urine" to "_________", etc. I agree that the sustainable sanitation and reuse sector should not hide behind a word (or words), but I do think there are some generalized instances where having a "sexier" term (or terms) would be helpful; like on product labels, marketing materials, signage, etc.

Why would you consider a UDDT as "the ultimate composting toilet"? A UDDT is for drying, not for composting? In which sense "ultimate"?

We have tried to make the differentiation between the two toilet types clear in the two Wikipedia articles:
Article on UDDTs: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine-diverting_dry_toilet
Article on composting toilets: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composting_toilet

Both articles are far from perfect and I welcome anyone to help improve them further.
David: do you disagree with anything that is written in these articles? Are they clear or are they confusing?

About a name that is "marketable", that's exactly my point: Was Kai asking for a "correct" term (one that can be used in Wikipedia articles) or a term that is "marketable"? These are two totally different things in my view.

A marketable term is e.g. things like "Evergreen", "Evergrow", "Crystal Green" (the latter is the term used by Ostara in Canada for their fertiliser derived from struvite crystallisation (www.crystalgreen.com/)).

But I think Kai was asking more for a term that can also be used in legislative texts, or did I misunderstand the original question?

That's interesting. I have always considered UDDTs as the ultimate composting toilet.

I think what is important is to come up with a name that is marketable. People do not react well to names that are too functional or obvious to what a product contains. I understand why Sanergy use biosolids, but in the strict sense of the word it is not accurate. Of course, if the name is not marketable then people will not use it and this process will be irrelevant.

Interesting discussion. But once again we seem to be mixing up things a bit.
As a UDDT is not equal to a composting toilet, I would be quite against using anything with the word "compost" to the material that comes out of a UDDT.
Therefore, I am not in favour of David's suggestions:

• EcoCom
• EcoComp
• BioComp

I think we need to clearly distinguish two things:

• Composting toilet
• UDDT

And:

• Whether the term that we are looking for is meant to be "scientifically correct" (i.e. the kind of term we could use in Wikipedia articles) or
• whether the term is meant to be used for marketing. If the latter, then yes, a "sexy" term is good. Just take whatever works in your local context or language, add as much "bio", "eco" or other flowery adjectives as you like.

But if it's the term used for Wikipedia articles, then I think it should be "neutral" and correct, and not include any "bio" or "eco" labels.

For Wikipedia, I have used "dried fecal matter from UDDTs" (note: we have decided to go for the American spelling in the Wikipedia articles, therefore fecal and not faecal (this is not a general rule for Wikipedia only for those working on the WikiProject Sanitation )).

I think it's more accurate than "UDDT solids", but it's a bit longer.

For the material that comes out of a composting toilet, I guess it depends on the type of composting toilet. If it's one with a large, long-term composting chamber (Clivus Multrum type), then the term "excreta-derived compost" or simply "compost" might be fine.
If it's one of those "composting toilets" which only have a bucket with woodchips, and the composting is done externally, then "compost" is not the right word to use. Then perhaps rather "partially degraded fecal matter" or simply "collected fecal matter and urine"?

In general, we should always check what the Sandec Compendium proposes as they have thought long and hard about the right terminology.

You can see here that they used "compost" as the output from a composting chamber:
ecompendium.sswm.info/sanitation-technol...chamber?group_code=s

(the outputs are given to the right of the schematic)

Whereas the output from a Fossa Alterna they have called pit humus:
ecompendium.sswm.info/sanitation-technol...alterna?group_code=s

The output from dehydration vaults they have simply called dried faeces:
ecompendium.sswm.info/sanitation-technol...aults-0?group_code=s

Regards,
Elisabeth

I think determining the name of the unit and then moving from there is a sensible suggestion. If a UDDT is colloquially known as an ecosan, then why not something based around this?

BioEco
EcoCom
EcoComp
BioComp
BioSoil

Have fun!

Kai:

Yes agree, we may not get too much from the States Health code language....maybe California or Texas worth looking at, or out west perhaps.



2 other ways to dervive a new name is

1) look at the language all our different groups have used.

From my Mexico work, and in my dissertation, I decided to be "honest" about it, which is not always "sexy" (good for promotion), and sometimes called it:

" low-grade fertilizer", or even "fill material".

If the material is treated enough, you could call it:

"desiccated material", or "desiccated solids", or "dehydrated solids"

Others in groups I was associated called it:

- fertilizer, ash, organic material (none of which I like)

That is looking at it from a "end use" stand point.


2) I previously said: UDDT solids

I think that is the most accurate (look at Cristophs course....and most standard ww texts.....the materials out of a plant are usually solids, liquids, or sludges.

This is from a traditional textbook "terms" standpoint

I like what one of the previous posters did, since my term "UDDT Solids" was not very "sexy" , he "spiced it up" by adding some graphics to it.

3) Look at synonyms for different "similar words" and see what you get. I google the "sexy concept" of "compost" that you are looking for and got:

www.powerthesaurus.org/compost

check these words out...i just looked at some of them, a few of slight interest are:

- soil conditioner

We should all try some synonyms with our favorite concepts, and see what results

David

what about this?

ciao, Hajo

David - thanks for your input. I recently reviewed many US state's (and Canadian province') rules and most use the very archaic (and inaccurate) term "waste" while others rely on the misleading term "compost". I say misleading given that many toilets allowed under the respective rules cannot produce compost without a secondary treatment step, particularly if they are used full time (and not designed for such use). A small handful of states make use of one of the following terms: "discharge", "liquids" or "effluent" when referring to the 'non-solids' portion of the contents, but as might be expected only one that I was able to locate could be construed to be referring to urine (as in a urine diverting dry toilet). Moreover, I was unable to find any specific reference to UDDTs. But this is all sort of beside the point.

The goal of my request was to arrive at a brand new term, something that most of us could agree upon and that is descriptive but not too 'wonky'; in other words, something that most folks in our sector will find acceptable and, most importantly, something 'sexy' enough for widespread use out in the larger world. We need to be able to market this material AND most importantly differentiate it from other nutrient-rich materials already in the marketplace.

KaiMikkel:

Ok..if you don't want to use EPA language because they dont have jurisdiction, you can look at some of the state Departments of Health....they do have jurisdiction in many States.....see what is in their codes. I will try to check Louisiana and Florida, where I am from

David