Chris,

I agree with the risks related to Otji toilet, plus allowing urine into the feces, then draining it below, makes it more complicated to deal with liquid containing bacteria/eggs, than if one works harder to design a better separation bowl in the first instance.

The Coanda is just an "effect", a tendency, not a requirement that fluid do this. And ensuring that all users will sit is no easy task. Nevertheless, if one is going to manufacture a sit-toilet bowl including the panel and capture ridge is a good idea.

I'm reminded of the still suits from Dune by Frank Herbert ... maybe we should focus on lightweight, breathable membrane pants which capture urine in a pocket, filter, then provide a tube upward, with a bite valve to suck on as one is out and about?

Stew

PS Many Kudos, Elisabeth, for your work on the UDDT Wikipedia page, and helping this community understand how to participate. A fabulous service.

Hi Christoph,

Yes, this is the same concept as the urine-diverting Otji toilet, only they are just trying to catch the urine from sitting users. The Otji has the groove all the way around, likely trying to catch the urine from standing men, but rocket-powered diarrhea must also find its way there, plus standing men could certainly aim some of their urine all the way down the toilet. I think this is why the NATSOL model seems much more convincing.

Best wishes,
Chris Canaday

Hi Chris,
the concept is basically the same as in the Otji toilets you came across in 2012 (here)
It is really a very interesting concept and the link you posted here is (somehow-I don´t know why) more convincing to me than the Otji toilets.

Thanks for that link
Christoph

Hi Elisabeth and all,

Congrats on the great advances on this and other Wikipedia pages. This is an important way to make our info available to all interested parties. I finally registered and started editing directly online in Wikipedia and I encourage others to also join in.

I am intrigued to learn of NATSOL's urine diversion via the Coanda Effect:
natsol.co.uk/urine-diverting-compost-toilets/

I suggest this link be included, as it took me a while to understand what was being referred to ... and find my way to this link.

I see great potential to achieve this with readily available sheets of plastic ... and make a very economical and very presentable user interface.

Best wishes,
Chris Canaday

Dear Kris,

Thank you very much for your quick comments on the Wikipedia page on UDDTs (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine-diverting_dry_toilet). They have helped me to improve this page further. If everyone makes only one quick comment, then in totality the page can become really good!

(1)

Your point about the less permanent nature of the pit latrine superstructure led me to add that into here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine-diverting_dry_toilet#Disadvantages

and I also added it to the pit latrine page here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_latrine#Disadvantages

The pit latrine page is coming together quite nicely, too, by the way. Do take a look.

I think if people only read the pit latrine page and the UDDT page then they are already aware of quite a few pertinent issues in sanitation.

(2)
Your point about the Erdos project was excellent. Whilst this project was a "failure" on some levels (UDDTs were abandoned in the end), it has been very well document and we can learn so much from it. Therefore, I dug out the PhD thesis of Amparo Flores from the library and also added the Erdos book to the library - such documents are good to cite in Wikipedia articles. I couldn't resist to also cite one posting by Arno on the forum from 2012 (one is not supposed to cite forum posts but I think every now and again an exception could be made).

All this is now here in this section of the UDDT article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine-diverting_dr...lti-storey_buildings

And because this project is so important, I also included it in the page on ecosan here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_sanitation#Examples

and on the page about dry toilets here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_toilet#Debates_around_dry_toilets

I am not saying my work on these pages is perfect or completed and I invite anyone to point out mistakes, flaws and what could be improved (or to improve it yourself).

Kai: you had asked about studies that give comparisons between "dry sanitation systems" and "wet sanitation systems". I think you would enjoy reading the PhD thesis of Amparo Flores that I mentioned above. It it very comprehensive and I think it supports my argument that (i) general statements about what is "better" than the other cannot be made and (ii) the two systems can be quite "close" to each other, at least in that case in China, where a clear "winner" could not be identified. I guess it depends on the weighting that you allocate to the different sustainability criteria.

See:
Flores, A. (2010). Towards sustainable sanitation: evaluating the sustainability of resource-oriented sanitation. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, UK
www.susana.org/en/resources/library/details/1172

Regards,
Elisabeth


P.S. Good news: All 10,000+ flickr photos from the SuSanA account have in the meantime been added to Wikimedia Commons (see: commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:File...on_Alliance_(SuSanA). This means that these photos can be used in Wikipedia articles very easily, with just a couple of clicks (and the original URL as well as photo description remains available). All the more reason to add more photos into this Flickr collection. :-)

Quick comments:

1. In the comparison with pit-latrine it could also be stated that UDDT are more permanent, e.g. pit-latrines are often relocated and thus need more space and people are less willing to invest in a nice super-structure as it will have to be dismantled at some point.

2. The multi-story urban UDDT example from that Chinese city could be mentioned as an unusual example.

Dear Kai,

Yea, it is surprising, but I am quite sure people do read in this thread and on the new Wikipedia UDDT page and might be mulling over it right now.

About the links that you sent regarding the issues with centralised wastewater treatment plants:

• You wrote a paragraph and then added some links to the end of the paragraph. In Wikipedia style, you should add the reference at the end of each sentence where an important statement is made (in particular when a figure is quoted).
• Some of the links go to one-off research papers which is not preferred by Wikipedia. They prefer review articles or meta analyses (or books). I guess exceptions can be made if it's an article which we know had a lot of impact and has been cited a lot by others.
• Quite a few of the documents that you provided are very specific documents, e.g. for the Cape Cod case in the USA. That is OK, but then the statement where you link to this article should not be overly general but it should be clear that the statement is for a specific situation or a specific case in the US.

Regards,
Elisabeth

Great work Elisabeth! And yes, I am nothing if not controversial when it comes to the "scourge of sewers and wastewater treatment plants" so thanks for another act of "moderating" a topic. Well done!

And please let me know which link sent you to anything other than an official report or study. I didn't mean to include anything but those.

On a related note, I must say that I too am a little surprised at the near deafening silence that this thread has elicited....

OK, I have quickly added a section on "comparison of UDDTs with sewer-based systems" with just those aspects that I think we can state and that are not controversial but well proven, e.g. the issue of pharmaceutical residues:
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urine...wer-based_sanitation

Made me realise we might need a separate page on reuse activities from UDDTs eventually or expand this section which is currently rather brief:
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urine...e_of_treated_excreta

Dear Kai,

OK, so now about the detailed reactions to your proposed changes to the Wikipedia page on UDDTs (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine-diverting_dry_toilet):

In your post above, the things marked in green are all things I could easily agree with and I have already made the necessary changes as follows:

• I am trying to consistently use vault, but mentioned a few times that "chamber" is an alternative word. "Container" is something that could be inside of a vault or a stand-alone thing.
• About the low cost thing, well I don't like to call UDDTs "low cost" because it depends what you compare it with. Many people who normally build pit latrines have said to me that UDDTs are too expensive for them! I have added information about the issue of costs in a separate section on costs now. I also cited a paper by Christoph Platzer from 2008 here. If there are other good papers to quote on the issue of costs and cost comparisons (UDDTs versus sewers), please let me know.
• Have added "urine-diverting desiccation toilet" as an alternative term (even though I had never heard about it before). Also added the information on toilets with powered fans.
• Added your suggestions on alternative cover materials.
• Added your suggestions of why people in the global North might choose UDDTs. By the way, I am not familiar with the terms "majority world" and "minority world". I just got used to global North and global South...
• About the handling of excreta (Point 12): good point, I have amended that like you suggested.
• All the other things in green in your post above, I have taken on board and changed in the article already now.

OK, now onto the things that I haven't yet taken on board because I do not really agree with are:

I am not sure if we really need to introduce the term "ecological toilet" as in my opinion this is ill-defined and in a way not really "neutral". It's like saying an "eco toilet". I prefer to call them UDDTs and say they are a type of dry toilet (see Wikipedia page on dry toilets: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_toilet)

Your point 11 about the challenges, I partly agree with it, but other parts I find too "subjective"/promotional, like we are really trying to push a UDDT onto everyone. I think the article needs to be neutral and not get too carried away. Also not sure how the word "ick"-factor could be translated and which references to cite exactly.

Things like this I find too biased for a Wikipedia article:

limitations that are associated with legacy sanitation systems and the real need to conserve water, addressing the institutional inertia that complicates the transition to more sustainable systems which, in the case of sanitation, is manifested by the extensive infrastructure and associated long term debt that are generally synonymous with the development of onsite septic systems

You also said:

You included a “Comparison with Pit Latrines” section. Should there perhaps also be a section entitled “Comparison with Legacy Septic Systems, Sewers and Wastewater Treatment Plants”?

And then you add a big long section which basically condemns sewer systems... This in my opinion is taking things too far away from the UDDT page.

If anything, you could add some of those criticims to the Wikipedia page on sewers or the related pages? :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewerage

Keep in mind that it's not good Wikipedia style to write a whole paragraph and then to add some references underneath, but rather you should be able to provide a reference for pretty much each sentence, particularly if it's a potentially controversial statement!

By the way, you might like to help clean up the Wikipedia article on sewage sludge, it is a bit all over the place, and some people from the US heavily criticising land application of sludge in the US (which I think you would agree with) and then others on the Talk page are complaining about ideologists, etc.:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sludge
(the neutrality of this article is disputed and it is too focussed on the situation in the US)

Also keep in mind that when you provide sources for statements, they should not be blogs and newspaper articles but proper reports, books (ISBN numbers are good), review journal articles (not just one singular article, ideally).

The information you provided is interesting but goes too far into details on sewerage systems and therefore does not belong on a UDDT page in my opinion. Maybe only a short essence of it, what UDDTs would avoid, e.g. pharmaceutical residues in wastewater effluent could be reduced if people used UDDTs and the pharmaceutical residues rather stayed in the excreta and then on the land. Yes, that could be added (we could cite the GIZ technology review on urine diversion for that statement).

So I can follow you on some small aspects regarding your UDDT versus sewerage comparison but not on the majority of it. Remember also that sewers deal with more than just excreta (also with greywater, stormwater and industrial effluent) so the comparison of UDDT versus sewerage is never really comparing apples with apples.

So this is my feedback on your feedback. Thanks a lot and let's continue the conversation, either here or on the talk pages of the Wikipedia on UDDTs or on sewers/sewerage/wastewater treatment plants etc.

And to everyone else I invite you to also take a look at the UDDT page which Kai helped me to improve and which looks like this now:
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine-diverting_dry_toilet

Who has further comments or suggestions for improvements?
Who is bold and makes changes directly on the Wikipedia page itself by following the simple guidelines that I listed in the post above this one?

Remember that Wikipedia pages usually come out at the top of Google searches (this page not yet, because it is still new), so wouldn't it be a lost opportunity not to have a good page on UDDTs?

Regards,
Elisabeth

Dear Kai,

Thanks for your detailed feedback about the Wikipedia article about UDDTs that I put together one evening (took me about 3 hours) to be a starting point for such a page:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine-diverting_dry_toilet

I am really happy that you have spent some time on making suggestions, and you know that if you have a good internet access you could make all these changes yourself, too.

However, to avoid disappointment I would always recommend to first put your ideas (if they are major changes) on the Talk page associated with this article (you find it on the top left side), where things can be discussed before a change is made.

In fact, before I now go into detail on how I would address your suggestions, let me first give a little run-down on what to keep in mind when editing Wikipedia articles (I have also attached this list as a Word document in case you want to forward it to someone else) - it's like a mini-tutorial:

Some important things to keep in mind for writing on Wikipedia:

• We are meant to write for the general public – short sentences, easy to understand, no jargon.
• We are meant to write in a neutral way, no advertising, no promotional stuff! If there are conflicting views we should state them both.
• We should not be biased but objective and neutral.
• We should use our own words, not copy from elsewhere (I think copying one’s own words, e.g. from a forum post that I have written, should be acceptable – but the general rule is to rather write from scratch. I have copied some sentences that we had written in the tech review, and then if needed adjusted the language. Copying whole sections from our other documents is not recommended).
• We are meant to provide references for most of our statements (even if for us they are standard knowledge things!).
• The citation goes after the full stop.
• We should note cite posts from the discussion forum; Preferred references are high quality sources; what they (Wikipedia admins) like the most are documents with ISBN numbers and review articles in journals (i.e. not primary research articles) – this comes from the medical field, it’s a bit different in the sanitation field where we anyway don’t rely on journal papers so much.
• The external links list should be used sparingly and should be short – we don’t want a list of any NGO that has ever built a UDDT.
• The “See also” list is not recommended, although you see it in quite a few articles of other people. I normally don’t use a See Also list.
• Referencing a blog is not ideal but I guess it can be done in exceptional cases (I see others do it too, but it not the preference of Wikipedia policy)
• If you have doubts about something or are planning a larger change, then it is usually better to first talk about it on the “Talk page”: each Wikipedia article has a “take page” associated with it; it is a tab at the top left called “Talk”.
• You can also view the “history” tab to see who has changed what in the past and also access the view statistics.
• You can also “watch” a page to be notified of future changes. I am of course “watching” all the pages that I worked on recently.

I guess these are the main things I have learnt so far from James Heilman who has helped me with the pages I have edited so far.

This one is an interesting link, it is the manual of style that James and others have developed for their Wikiproject Medicine:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_o...ine-related_articles

I will now put details about the UDDT Wikipedia page into a separate post after this one.

Regards,
Elisabeth

Hello All,

It has come to my attention that Elisabeth has been tirelessly dedicating herself to updating the wikipedia entry relating to UDDTs. First off, I want to thank Elisabeth for the time she's put into this and also say that I look forward to "final" edition.

Here's a link to the relevant page:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine-diverting_dry_toilet

Elisabeth is encouraging suggestions/critiques of what appears on the page so I have prepared the following with this in mind. I'd love to know what others think about my suggestions.

PLEASE NOTE - The following items have already been incorporated into the wiki page (1-3, 5-10, 12, 14-15) and I've colored them green to help differentiate them.

1. Overall, you interchange your use of the terms “chamber”, “vault”, “hole” and “container”. To reduce confusion should you perhaps include these various terms in the definition at the beginning but then rely only on one throughout the remainder of the page? This may not work but I feel like something should be done to address the uniformity that is currently missing. By this, I mean that sometimes you chose to use one term over the others. And in these instances I found myself wondering why you chose the one you did. Again, this may be a non-issue to other people.

2. In the first sentence which reads, “A urine-diverting dry toilet (UDDT) is a type of dry toilet with urine diversion that can be used to provide sustainable sanitation in a variety of contexts worldwide,” would it make sense to include the phrase “low-cost” in front of “sustainable”? After all are not the combined upfront and life-cycle costs of every UDDT out there (even the high-priced manufactured models) always lower cost than a flush toilet, particularly when the upfront and lifecycle costs of the flush toilet and all of its associated infrastructure are factored in? What is the useful life of a flush toilet? And based on that lifespan how much will a flush toilet cost to install operate, maintain and dispose of over that period? And, in contrast, how much will, say a “typical” UDDT cost over the same period? Has it been clearly shown somewhere (in some study or paper, etc.) that UDDT’s are more economical (lower cost) then the combination of conventional flush toilets and their associated infrastructure (water delivery, septic tanks, sewers & wastewater treatment plants, etc.)? If so, might it make sense to mention this important disparity somewhere in the wiki article?

3. In the second paragraph and following , “An alternative name of it is,” would it make sense to also include the other common expansion of UDDT, specifically, “Urine Diverting Desiccation Toilet”? When I first encountered this technology this what I understood “UDDT” to be short for given that many manufacturers use this particular expansion of the UDDT acronym. Also, don’t single vault or single tank UDDT models that feature a powered fan(s) in the design of their ventilation system (I’m thinking here specifically of homebuilt or mass produced models like the Nature’s Head and Air Head models) also qualify as “dehydration” or “desiccation” toilets? If so, then some allowance should be made to include them in your definition of what qualifies as a “dehydrations toilet”.

4. I have a friendly amendment to your sentence which currently reads, “This type of toilet is also called by many people ecosan toilet, although this is not recommended as ecosan is not limited to this type of toilet.” Perhaps it should instead read, “Often considered to be synonymous with the phrase “ecological sanitation” (ecosan) it is important to remember that UDDTs are far from the only type or style of “ecological toilet”.”

5. You wrote, “In many cases, UDDTs are offered together with waterless urinals to prevent male users from standing over the UDDT and aiming by mistake into the wrong hole, i.e. the faeces hole.” Perhaps this sentence should instead read, “In many cases, UDDTs are installed alongside waterless urinals (particularly in lavatories/bathrooms frequented by male users) in an attempt to address the problem of male users standing over the UDDT to urinate and inadvertently directing urine into the “wrong opening” i.e. the faeces chamber.”

6. Under the heading “Principle” and following #2 should the sentence instead read, “One or two vaults, usually above ground, or one or more chambers or containers, or one shallow pit for faeces collection and storage;”?

7. Under the heading “Principle” and following #6 should the sentence perhaps instead read, ”Toilet super-structure, unless the toilet is installed inside an existing house or is of the standalone or portable variety;”?

8. Under the heading “Principle” and following #7 should the sentence instead perhaps read, “Bucket with dry cover material (see below), etc.); and”?

9. And should you perhaps include more examples of common cover materials? For example, shredded coconut husk (coir), dried leaves, dried peat moss, etc.?

10. Under the heading “Suitability” (and so as to associate this technology with the Minority World/Global North/West instead of only the Majority World) and following “UDDTs are particularly suitable in situations where:”, could you perhaps include something along the lines of:

a. “An individual, family or community wants to increase the resiliency of their existing sanitation system in the face of natural disasters (i.e. climate change) and/or the looming low energy future.”; and

b. “Following approval by local building inspectors and health department authorities, an individual or family seeks to reduce or perhaps eliminate the need for an onsite septic system (particularly when used in conjunction with an onsite greywater system) and/or seeks a waterless, lower-cost and more sustainable alternative to septic tanks and sewers.”

11. Under the heading “Challenges” I think it would make sense to discuss the challenges that are shared by both the Majority and Minority worlds and to also divide up the challenges that are exclusive to the Majority World and those that are exclusive to the Minority World. For instance, building upon what you wrote in the context of developing countries (my suggestions in red), “overcoming any perceived “ick” factor, a lack of awareness, lack of financial means, a limited supply of prefabricated UDDT components, low government priority given to the provision of sanitation services to non-sewered areas of settlements and the perception of flush toilets being the “gold standard”. And in the context of the developed world, overcoming any perceived “ick” factor, the need to modernize building codes and health safety regulations in order to permit the use of so-called “ecological toilets”, the need to educate the masses about the problems and limitations that are associated with legacy sanitation systems and the real need to conserve water, addressing the institutional inertia that complicates the transition to more sustainable systems which, in the case of sanitation, is manifested by the extensive infrastructure and associated long term debt that are generally synonymous with the development of onsite septic systems (at the household or neighborhood level) or sewers and wastewater treatment plants (at the municipal level).

12. Also, you wrote “Many users outside of rural areas do not have an interest in handling excreta to fertiliser [sic] their gardens.” Is this backed up by real world data or simply an observation? Are there not many examples of people in peri-urban (and even some urban) areas who are using excreta to fertilize gardens? Also, isn’t this sentence limiting in that it assumes that the only manner in which to dispose of excreta is to use it fertilize gardens? After all urine can flow to a soak-way and cured feces can simply be buried on site (rather than being used specifically as fertilizer). Perhaps the paragraph should instead read, “Many users do not have an interest in handling excreta. In these cases, provisions should be made for door-to-door/curbside collection of these materials, similar to how existing municipal or private schemes collect household organic waste (from kitchens and gardens, etc.) and transport it to a centralised facility for composting or biogas generation.”

13. You included a “Comparison with Pit Latrines” section. Should there perhaps also be a section entitled “Comparison with Legacy Septic Systems, Sewers and Wastewater Treatment Plants”? If so, then might I suggest the following:

a. UDDTs are a low cost sanitation solution particularly when compared to the common alternatives in use in the developed world. In comparison, not only can the amortized cost associated with the installation of an onsite septic system in some locations account for as much as 10-15% of the total cost of the average new home (in the USA) but they are expensive to repair and suffer from a limited average life.

* Source: www.census.gov/construction/nrs/pdf/uspricemon.pdf

* Source: www.capecodcommission.org/resources/RWMP...osts_comparative.pdf [the most timely analysis I could find]

* Source: nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P1007ZQR.TXT...earchMethod=1&TocRes

b. And although representing a somewhat lower per capita cost when compared to decentralized septic systems (thanks to the associated economies of scale) the construction and maintenance of sewers and wastewater treatment plants represent a large financially liability to the communities in which they are installed.

* Source: www.ccwpc.org/images/educ_materials/wwre...d_ww_costs--4-10.pdf

* Source: www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/11-18-watersystems.pdf

c. Moreover, wastewater treatment plants are energy intensive operations, many times representing the largest single user in a given municipality’s energy portfolio.

* Source: epa.gov/statelocalclimate/documents/pdf/wastewater-guide.pdf

d. And when we factor in the environmental costs associated with the aforementioned waterborne sanitation systems – in other words, how they not only facilitate the use of large volumes of treated water but are well known to leak, fail and to be relatively ineffective at preventing nutrient loading in surface bodies of water (while also serving as breeding grounds for antibiotic resistant bacteria and providing direct and indirect pathways for industrial toxics to enter waterways) – and finally compare all of these liabilities to the benefits inherent with UDDTs (waterless, non-water contaminating, fertilizer generating) the advantages really become apparent.

i. US WWTPs release upwards of 80 billion gallons of untreated wastewater and stormwater (otherwise known as, “raw sanitary wastewater, untreated industrial wastes and stormwater runoff,”) into receiving surface bodies of water annually.

* Source: U.S. EPA (2004) Report to Congress: Impacts and Controls of CSOs and SSOs . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington DC. EPA 833-R-04-001.

* Source: U.S. EPA (1994) Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy; Notice . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, Washington DC. FRL-4732-7

ii.US WWTPs harbor antibiotic resistant bacteria and release these pathogens into surface waters.

* Source: www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15287390600975137

* Source: www.medscape.com/viewarticle/756378_8

iii. Existing regulations governing WWTPs, “are not effective in controlling the discharge of hundreds of hazardous chemicals to surface waters such as lakes and streams. Sewage treatment plant staff do not monitor for hazardous chemicals discharged by industrial users. This is due to a general regulatory focus on the priority pollutants list that has not been updated since 1981, limited monitoring requirements, limited coordination between EPA offices, a lack of tracking hazardous waste notifications required for submittal by industrial users, or a lack of knowledge of discharges reported by industrial users under the Toxics Release Inventory. Except for EPA Region 9, sewage treatment plant permits generally include very few monitoring requirements or effluent limits, which can limit enforcement actions. The EPA developed whole effluent toxicity test results as a mechanism to identify toxic chemicals such as hazardous discharges to sewage treatment plants. However, these are not required for all permits, and are not tracked by the EPA to verify that sewage treatment plants are reporting results as required. Moreover, exceedances of chemical limits in permits and toxicity tests do not trigger notification to enforcement programs. Consequently, the EPA may not be aware of chemical discharge or toxicity exceedances that should be addressed to minimize potentially harmful contamination of water resources.

* Source: US EPA Office of the Inspector General “ More Action Is Needed to Protect Water Resources From Unmonitored Hazardous Chemicals ” Report No. 14-P-0363, September 29, 2014.

14. Under the heading “Design Aspects” it would be great if you could include something about the mass produced UDDT options available to consumers especially in regards to their construction. I’m referring here to the standalone all-in-one toilet units (not just the pans) like those manufactured by the most well-known producers out of plastic and fiberglass, etc.

15. Under the heading “Examples” should mention perhaps be made of the large UDDT program being managed by eThekwini Water & Sanitation especially given that it alone is serving upwards of 500,000 people?

I look forward to what other people have to say.