Hi, Ross,

Attached is the Low-Cost Struvite Reactor Construction Manual It's also available at this link:

www.eawag.ch/fileadmin/Domain1/Abteilung..._struvite_manual.pdf

I found quite a few related documents in the Susana library and most lead back to the Eawag project for struvite production. Here's the project page.

www.eawag.ch/en/department/sandec/projects/ewm/stun/

Eawag folks are friendly. Bastian Etter is the contact person for the project. And others involved, such as Marijn Zandee, are active here on the Forum. This overview is an introduction.

library.eawag.ch/EAWAG-Publications/open...cnews09/Tilley10.pdf

And there are a number of posts here on the Forum.

www.susana.org/en/search?searchword=STUN+Nepal

Thank you for the question. I'd like to dig into this more myself. Reusing urine as struvite should be easier to get permitted. In fact, wastewater treatment plants in the Pacific Northwest have been producing high quality proprietary struvite for years. Here's an account of a tour we took.

www.phlush.org/2011/04/18/visit-to-the-n...e-recovery-facility/

Look forward to learning what you learn for possible use in Australia.

Carol




++++++++++++

Note by moderator (EvM): See also related thread on "Urine collection, treatment and use from festivals":
forum.susana.org/173-urine-diversion-sys...d-use-from-festivals

Afternoon Carol.
Is there by any chance an English translation available for the low cost STUN reactor you referenced ?
Regards Ross

Thank you Cecile,
I am going to contact working group n°8

@ Bowenarrow: I am not a specialist in this topic but I have heard that trials to dry urine have not been very fruitful for two reasons: energy intensive and the most terrible smell.
Current research (e.g. VUNA project) is going towards urine precipitation to produce struvite, a phosphorous rich powder.


@ Emmanuel: I think that the toilets built by Ecodomeo are an interesting solution for refugee camps (with some awareness) and for emergency situations. But as you say you need to get into the appropriate networks and it is not easy. SuSanA has a working group which tackles solutions in emergency settings: working group n°8 - Emergency and reconstruction. Do you belong to this working group? It could be interesting for you to join this group and to find opportunities for an action research project to test Ecodomeo type toilets (UDDT + vermicomposting or composting or drying or co composting...).

Regards,

Hello Psewor,

Ecodomeo has a project to develop UDDT toilets with a very low cost and easy to maintenance. But we need big quantities to have an industrial interest, even just to pay the development costs and the tooling.
The problem is to find customers for such project.
I heard in March this year that 70 million people are living in camp and the toilets are a big problem.
I tried to have contacts in Geneve in world institutions, big NGO's. But It is very difficult to find the right person that can take a decision to buy toilets. Some are deciding, some are technical supports, some are paying, and it is very difficult to have an answer.
I stopped that project because I do not have enough time to find customers.

Everyone has a job. Mine is to develop technical solutions. I can not find customers alone.
So If someone want to do a project with Ecodomeo to develop UDDT toilets at a very low cost, I am ready.

Regards
Emmanuel
Ecodomeo - FR

Interesting topic. Has there been any work done on drying and pelletising urine ?

Dear Psewor,

Thank your for reactivating this discussion. This is interesting because this thread started in 2014 while we were still under the MDG and we are now under the ODDs goals with the 2030 Agenda which gives more legitimacy to sustainable sanitation solutions at global and universal level.

To answer your question: Why developed world context?
Even though the level of access to clean water and sanitation is much higher in the developed world than in developing countries, conventional sanitation systems are hardly sustainable. Sanitation in developed countries functions according to an open loop model where valuable nutrients are lost to rivers and water bodies and agriculture relies on industrialised fertilisers and pumping fresh water.

The ODDs do target specifically sustainability including recycling (they mention of "water" but by extent to all limited non renewable resources). ODDs are more universal and in that sense the goals apply to all the countries of the world. Sustainable solutions are just as hardly needed in the developed world as in developing countries.

There are other benefits in pushing towards sustainable sanitation solutions in developed countries:
- it allows piloting sustainable sanitation in wider range of settings and therefore it allows testing the appropriateness and the validity of the systems implemented. We can draw lessons learned which will be useful for implementation in developing countries.

- It sets an example that is more likely to be followed and to be seen as a good practice. It is not very coherent and poorly motivating to push towards solutions that we don't apply to ourselves.

As Emmanuel was saying, how can we better manage 50 000 litres of pure urine collected on leisurable events in 3 days in France? French entrepreneurs were successful in providing UDDTs / waterless urinals for public events with a lot of satisfaction of the users. But the end of the chain still needs to be improved. What does this urine become? It is a pity to bring the urine back to a WWTP and solutions so far (pour it on animal manure piles in a field) is legally borderline and only allows limited quantities. If we can set a systematic system for recovery (and civil society organisations and entrepreneurs are trying but it is difficult) then, we can use it to promote the same kind of solutions in other settings (events in developing countries and emergency settings).

To conclude, I would say that the developing world needs urine diversion dry toilets - and other sustainable sanitation options- as much as the developed world. And I do hope that more schools in Ghana but also in the "western" countries will adopt UDDTs and other sustainable solutions.

Now is the time for change for everybody.

Why developed world context?
The developing world need urine divert dry toilet most. The KVIPs promotion in Ghana would have adverse effect on the water bodies. Researches have shown that, ground water pollution is through the use of KVIP toilets and improper designs and construction of septic tank.
Unfortunately, developed countries and partners are still promoting and constructing more of KVIPs in the country as solution to end open defecation.
Most communities depend on boreholes as source of potable water. We all know how ground water and other water bodies are recharged.
The technology of "urine divert dry toilet have been piloted in some institutions and households in the Volta Region (Ho Municipal). All benefits derived from UDDT are obvious. The project was funded by Cities of Finland (Javenpa and Lahti). Thank you University of Tampere
I would most grateful if my country would adopt UDDT in all schools in Ghana.
Therefore developed world help the developing world to start using UDDT from now. Now is the time for change.

One point of clarification: an earlier post in this thread made reference to "Rich Earth Ostara" and I just want to point out that those are two different organizations. The Rich Earth Institute collects pure urine from UDDTs and waterless urinals for treatment and reuse in liquid form, while Ostara reactors typically extract struvite from centralized wastewater treatment plants.

--Abe

Hello Emmanuel,
I came across this powerpoint presentation on utilizing biochar and MgO to remove nutrients from urine. Perhaps it can be helpful to your project. The power point presentation suggested application for Bejing Olympic Forest Park urine diversion system and SuSanA published a case study on this project.

I continue to be intrigued by the many potential benefits of integrating biochar in dry toilet systems, where it may assist in cycling nutrients and sequestering carbon.

Kind regards,
Jeff Holiman

Hi,

thank you everyone for your contribution.
It is very interesting to see all different solutions and ways of thinking.

I am working on a "french" subject.
In summer in France, we have lots of outdoor concerts and music festivals.
People who rent dry toilets for that festivals use also dry urinals and collect huge quantities of urine. They can collect sometimes more than 50 000 liters in 3 days.
Today we do not know how to use that urine correctly.
The NPK concentration is not sufficient to use it directly in agriculture as a fertilizer.
We can not put it in the earth near the festival place.

So I am working on 2 options for the treatment :
1/ treat urine directly on site during the festival
2/ bring urine in a "treatment" plant after festival to treat it,

and I want to separate urine in 2 other products :
* a clear water that can be put directly in the earth or a pipe for raining water or ...
* a concentration of the rest (liquid or solid)

Do you think that an existing solution is available ?
Is it possible to have an economic interest in doing that ?
What do you think about that project ?

Regards

Emmanuel
Ecodomeo

OK, while it at least in part meets the goals of ecosan, it bears pointing out that much of Ostara's technology is inherently unsustainable.

For example:

1) Ostara has at least once availed itself of magnesium chloride sourced from a supplier in China (the procurement of which undoubtedly involved the use of fossil-fuel powered ships) [this could be mitigated in some cases by using locally derived bittern;

2) The production of lye (sodium hydroxide) is inherently unsustainable,

3) Ostara's reactor is designed primarily with legacy wastewater systems in mind;

4) Ostara's technology is heavily dependent on large sources of capital and large amounts of energy.

Based on the above, Ostara's "Reactor 2000" strikes me as a classic example of a "green" techno-fix; in other words, something that's being billed as "green" but which will not in the end solve the underlying problem that it purports to be tackling. And as a result this is not something that I would support given that as far as I'm concerned those scant public funds available should instead be going towards systems (like that being pushed by Rich Earth Institute) that will better stand the test of time (and, in particular, the low-water and low-energy future facing us). In marked contrast to Ostara's "solution", source-separation and reuse can be very easily implemented using locally sourced materials and facilitated, if need be, via horse-drawn (or even bicycle-powered) forms of transportation.