I guess you could call this "Potty Talk" but our sustainability team is reviewing the possibility of hand driers and waterless urinals in our restrooms. Being a food manufacturing we are looking to ensure this is done in a sanitary manner.

I know hand driers have their issues with sanitation but there appear to be some "sanitary" models from Dyson and Sani-Dri that reduce or eliminate the bacteria issues which make it a more viable option.

What I have not been able to find if definitive proof on the sanitary merit of waterless urinals. There seems to be split sides on whether they are sanitary. It seems as if there is merit in water savings but we cannot trade of one issue for another.

Questions:
Is anyone using a "sanitary" hand drier?
Does anyone use waterless urinals in a food manufacturing restroom?
Does anyone have objective evidence as to whether or not they are sanitary?

:thanx:

Can any of you who are involved in food products comment on, or help with, this thread?

If "sanitary hand driers" are the air dryers that detect motion and turn on, they are used quite commonly in food manufacturing facilities as the paper or cloth roll type are generally prohibited due to sanitation issues. We had looked at the waterless urinals, but like you, I could not get any definitive information on it.

USRREVA - Thanks and welcome to the cove. :bigwave:

"Sanitary hand driers" are a new breed that claims to reduce the spread of germs. Typical hand driers are not always that sanitary and spread more germs than papertowels.

I would think the marketers of the equipment, at least of a better grade, would regard it as their responsibility to have available for their regulated customers a substantial file of performance information amounting to a process validation report. They also should provide a literature survey regarding relevant research and objective product performance evaluations.

I assume they make the usual claims of suitability for the intended purpose and superior performance compared to the competition. Without such documentation, how are their claims defendable?

Refer this interesting article - http://www.kellermeyer.com/Resources/Hot_Air_Dryer_vs_Paper_Towels.pdf

For hand driers, you can validate its effectiveness but for waterless urinals??? I think the problem with urinals are from the poor marksmen who splashed all over - in the old system, at least they were flushed with water but not so in the waterless system. Perhaps good only for the sharp shooters.

For hand driers, you can validate its effectiveness but for waterless urinals??? I think the problem with urinals are from the poor marksmen who splashed all over - in the old system, at least they were flushed with water but not so in the waterless system. Perhaps good only for the sharp shooters.

Waterless urinals stink! :mg:

Stijloor.

Waterless urinals stink! :mg:

Stijloor.

For waterless urinals, refer Urinals

A waterless urinal

A more recent innovation is urinals that do not use water at all. The innovation is secured with several patents. Models later introduced by Waterless Company in 1992[3] and others in 2001 by Falcon Waterfree Technologies and Sloan Valve Company, as well as Duravit, utilize a trap insert filled with a sealant liquid instead of water. The lighter-than-water sealant floats on top of the urine collected in the U-bend, preventing odors from being released into the air. Although the cartridge and sealant must be periodically replaced, the system saves anywhere between 15,000 and 45,000 gallons (approx. between 56,800 and 170,000 liters) of water per urinal per year.[4].

Other companies do not use a cartridge; instead they have developed an outlet system that traps the odor, preventing the smell often present in toilet blocks. They can be installed in high-traffic facilities and in situations where providing a water supply may be difficult or where water conservation is desired. Due to high-level water restrictions, Brisbane has mandated conversion to waterless urinals and flush urinals are rarely seen.

In March 2006, the Associated Press reported that the plumbers union in Philadelphia had become upset because the developer of the city's newest skyscraper, Liberty Property Trust, has decided to use waterless urinals in the Comcast Center. Many in the union decided that because of the decision that this would lead to less work for them. The developer cited saving the city 1.6 million gallons (approx 6.06 million liters) of water per year as its deciding factor

For waterless urinals, refer Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urinals)-

A waterless urinalA more recent innovation is urinals that do not use water at all. The innovation is secured with several patents. Models later introduced by Waterless Company in 1992[3] and others in 2001 by Falcon Waterfree Technologies and Sloan Valve Company, as well as Duravit, utilize a trap insert filled with a sealant liquid instead of water. The lighter-than-water sealant floats on top of the urine collected in the U-bend, preventing odors from being released into the air. Although the cartridge and sealant must be periodically replaced, the system saves anywhere between 15,000 and 45,000 gallons (approx. between 56,800 and 170,000 liters) of water per urinal per year.[4].

Other companies do not use a cartridge; instead they have developed an outlet system that traps the odor, preventing the smell often present in toilet blocks. They can be installed in high-traffic facilities and in situations where providing a water supply may be difficult or where water conservation is desired. Due to high-level water restrictions, Brisbane has mandated conversion to waterless urinals and flush urinals are rarely seen.

In March 2006, the Associated Press reported that the plumbers union in Philadelphia had become upset because the developer of the city's newest skyscraper, Liberty Property Trust, has decided to use waterless urinals in the Comcast Center. Many in the union decided that because of the decision that this would lead to less work for them. The developer cited saving the city 1.6 million gallons (approx 6.06 million liters) of water per year as its deciding factor

Those must be the "conforming" urinals, the ones that I have seen produced an unbelievable foul odor.

Stijloor.

Those must be the "conforming" urinals, the ones that I have seen produced an unbelievable foul odor.

Maybe it ends up being a wash - the cost of the water not used is offset by more power required by the exhaust fan.

Kind of like the low flow flushes - less water per flush...just more flushes to accommodate the job.

Or thinner toilet paper - less paper per sheet...but more sheets used.

Ingenious!

We haven’t used waterless urinal. I guess it’s visibly clean but we can’t say it’s 100% free of germs or microorganism so i will not use the word sanitary. If it’s a measure to prevent contamination why, not try the potential of it. Other beneficial effects of waterless urinals vary on the types of materials such urinal is made of.