Designing an Evaluation Protocol for Composting Toilet Systems ______

Designing an Evaluation Protocol for Composting Toilet Systems ______________________________________________________________ An Interactive Qualifying Project submitted to the Faculty of Worcester Polytechnic Institute in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science. By: Camryn Berry Zahava Preil Lena Sophia Thompson Date: February 26, 2020 Report Submitted to: Professor Seth Tuler and Professor Isa Bar-On This report represents work of WPI undergraduate students submitted to the faculty as evidence of a degree requirement. WPI routinely publishes these reports on its web site without editorial or peer review. For more information about the projects program at WPI, see http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Projects Abstract Two billion people worldwide lack access to adequate sanitation which ensures hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact. Composting toilets help address this health hazard by containing waste and reducing risk of disease. The goal of our project was to develop a cost-effective, user-friendly and minimally-disruptive protocol to evaluate the function, use and maintenance of composting toilets. This protocol was trialed at Kibbutz Lotan in Israel. We concluded that Lotan’s system was effective, though inefficient. The trial allowed us to identify potential improvements to the protocol that can be applied in the future. Our protocol is successful for evaluating the success of a system and how adequately it can address the unnecessary loss of life caused by inadequate sanitation. ii Acknowledgements We would like to thank the people who helped make our project possible. Firstly, we would like to thank our sponsor Alex Cicelsky of the Kibbutz Lotan Center for Creative Ecology. We would also like to thank his fellows Mike Kaplin and Eran Meiri for their input on the composting toilet system and their assistance with finding tools. Additionally, we would like to thank Maya Galimidi for her organization skills and support while at Kibbutz Lotan. We are grateful and would like to thank Clive Lipchin from the Arava Institute for giving us the Aquagenx test kit. A special thank you to the following for assisting us with data collection: Huy Cao, Anna Correia, Quang Huynh, Zach Lynn, Jordan Rosenfeld, and Jill Schilp. Finally, we would like to thank our advisors Professor Seth Tuler and Professor Isa Bar-On for their guidance and advice throughout the whole IQP experience. iii Authorship Section Primary Author Primary Editor Abstract Camryn Berry Lena Thompson 1.0 Camryn Berry Zahava Preil 2.0 Camryn Berry Zahava Preil 3.0 Camryn Berry Lena Thompson 4.0 Zahava Preil Lena Thompson 4.1 Camryn Berry Lena Thompson 4.2 Zahava Preil Camryn Berry 4.2.1 Zahava Preil Camryn Berry 4.2.2 Zahava Preil Camryn Berry 4.2.3 Lena Thomspon Zahava Preil 4.2.4 Zahava Preil Camryn Berry 4.3 Zahava Preil Camryn Berry 4.3.1 Zahava Preil Lena Thompson 4.3.2 Lena Thompson Zahava Preil 4.3.3 Zahava Preil Camryn Berry 4.4 Zahava Preil Camryn Berry 4.4.1 Zahava Preil Camryn Berry 4.4.2 Lena Thompson Zahava Preil 4.4.3-4 Zahava Preil Camryn Berry 5.0-1 Zahava Preil Camryn Berry 5.2 Lena Thompson Zahava Preil 5.3 Zahava Preil Camryn Berry 6.0-1 Zahava Preil Camryn Berry 6.2 Lena Thompson Zahava Preil 6.3 Zahava Preil Lena Thompson 7.0 Lena Thompson Camryn Berry iv Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Authorship iv Table of Tables vii Table of Figures vii 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Background 2 2.1 The Global Sanitation Crisis 2 2.2 Composting Toilets: Principle, Design, and Usage 3 2.2.1 Composting Toilets: Chemistry and Biology 6 2.2.2 Composting Toilets: Maintenance 7 2.2.3 Composting Toilets: Evaluating a System 8 3.0 Methodology 9 3.1 Functional Variables 9 3.2 Usage Variables 10 3.3 Maintenance Variables 11 3.4 The Evaluation Protocol 12 4.0 Case Study 22 4.1 How We Applied the Protocol to Evaluate the Lotan Systems 22 4.1.1 EcoKef Public Toilets 22 4.1.2 EcoCampus Public Toilets 23 4.1.3 Square Dome Personal Toilets 24 4.2 Methodology of Evaluating Composting Toilets at Kibbutz Lotan 25 4.2.1 Safety and Researcher Roles 25 4.2.2 Application and Evaluation of the Functional Variables at Lotan 26 4.2.3 Application of the Survey and Interview Evaluation at Lotan 27 4.2.4 Application and Evaluation of the Maintenance Variables at Lotan 28 4.3 Results of the Kibbutz Lotan Evaluation 28 4.3.1 Data Gathered from Evaluating Bin Functionality and Results 28 4.3.1.1 Experimental Repeated Daily Measurement 49 4.3.2 Data Analysis of the Use of Composting Toilets at Kibbutz Lotan 54 4.3.3 Data and Information Regarding Maintenance of Lotan Systems 60 4.4 Discussion of Results and Recommendations for the Kibbutz Lotan Composting Toilet Systems 61 v 4.4.1 Issues and Improvements Regarding System Functionality 61 4.4.2 Issues and Improvements Regarding System Usage 62 4.4.3 Issues and Improvements Regarding System Maintenance 63 4.4.4 Moving Forward 64 5.0 Results of our Evaluation 64 5.1 Ease of Functional Evaluation 64 5.2 Ease of Use and Data Analysis Regarding Use 65 5.3 Ease of Evaluating System Maintenance 65 6.0 Recommendations for the Evaluation 66 6.1 What Can be Changed to Improve the Evaluation of Function 66 6.2 What Can be Changed to Improve the Evaluation of Use 67 6.3 What Can be Changed to Improve the Evaluation of Maintenance 68 7.0 Conclusion 68 References 70 Appendix A: Data from Daily Measurements of Compost Bins 73 Appendix B: Survey Data 81 Appendix C: Codebook of Survey Responses 84 vi Table of Tables Table 1: ISO Classification of Composting Toilets 4 Table 2: Functional Variables of a Composting Toilet System 10 Table 3: User Variables of a Composting Toilet System 11 Table 4: Maintenance Variables of a Composting Toilet System 12 Table of Figures Figure 1: Percentage of Population Using Sanitation Facilities 2 Figure 2: General Schematic of a Simple Composting Toilet 4 Figure 3: Nature’s Head Personal Composting Toilet 6 Figure 4: Permanent Composting Toilet 6 Figure 5: Layout of Collection Containers at EcoKef 23 Figure 6: Layout of Collection Containers at EcoCampus 24 Figure 7: Layout of Collection Containers at Square Domes 25 Figure 8: Researchers Berry and Preil Performing Height Measurements 26 Figure 9: Bin 1 Height 29 Figure 10: Bin 1 Temp & pH 29 Figure 11: Bin 2 Height 30 Figure 12: Bin 2 Temperature & pH 30 Figure 13: Bin A Height 31 Figure 14: Bin A Temperature & pH 31 Figure 15: Bin C Height 32 Figure 16: Bin C Temperature & pH 32 Figure 17: Bin 7 Height 33 Figure 18: Bin 7 Temperature & pH 33 vii Figure 19: Bin 8 Height 34 Figure 20: Bin 8 Temperature & pH 34 Figure 21: Bin 10 Height 35 Figure 22: Bin 10 Temperature & pH 35 Figure 23: Bin J Height 36 Figure 24: Bin J Temperature & pH 36 Figure 25: Bin K Height 37 Figure 26: Bin K Temperature & pH 37 Figure 27: Bin L Height 38 Figure 28: Bin L Temperature & pH 38 Figure 29: Bin D Height 39 Figure 30: Bin D Temperature & pH 39 Figure 31: Bin E Height 40 Figure 32: Bin E Temperature & pH 40 Figure 33: Bin F Height 41 Figure 34: Bin F Temperature & pH 41 Figure 35: Bin 6.0 Height 42 Figure 36: Bin 6.0 Temperature & pH 42 Figure 37: Bin G Height 43 Figure 38: Bin G Temperature & pH 43 Figure 39: Bag Test of Bin I (June) 44 Figure 40: Bag Test of Bin H (August) 44 Figure 41: Bag Test of Bin E (November) 45 Figure 42: Bag Test of Bin F (December) 45 Figure 43: Bag Tst of Bin 6.0 (January) 46 viii Figure 44: Bag Test of Bin 5.0 (February) 46 Figure 45: Bag Test of Bin 10 (Active) 47 Figure 46: Bag Test of EcoKef Pile 47 Figure 47: Bag Test of Eco Campus Pile (Older) 48 Figure 48: Bag Test of Eco Campus Pile (Newer) 48 Figure 49: Bag Test of Bin 6.0 Under UV Light 49 Figure 50: Bag Test of Eco Campus Pile Under UV Light 49 Figure 51: Experimental Bin 1 Height 50 Figure 52: Experimental Bin 1 Temperature & pH 50 Figure 53: Experimental Bin A Height 51 Figure 54: Experimental Bin A Temperature & pH 51 Figure 55: Experimental Bin 7 Height 52 Figure 56: Experimental Bin 7 Temperature & pH 52 Figure 57: Experimental Bin L Height 53 Figure 58: Experimental Bin L Temperature & pH 53 Figure 59: Experimental Bin 6 Height 54 Figure 60: Experimental Bin 6 Temperature & pH 54 Figure 61: Gender Data 55 Figure 62: Country of Origin Data 55 Figure 63: Type of Residence Data 56 Figure 64: Preference Data 56 Figure 65: The Why Behind Preference Data 57 Figure 66: User Comfort Data 57 Figure 67: Differences from Flush Toilet Data 58 Figure 68: Conditions of System Data 58 ix Figure 69: Community Perception Data 59 Figure 70: Community Use Data 59 Figure 71: Use Elsewhere Data 60 Figure 72: Frequency of Use Data 60 Figure 73: Recommended Improvements Data 62 Figure 74: Bin 1 Data 73 Figure 75: Bin 2 Data 73 Figure 76: Bin 6 Data 74 Figure 77: Bin 7 Data 74 Figure 78: Bin 8 Data 75 Figure 79: Bin 10 Data 75 Figure 80: Bin A Data 76 Figure 81: Bin C Data 76 Figure 82: Bin D Data 77 Figure 83: Bin E Data 77 Figure 84: Bin F Data 78 Figure 85: Bin G Data 78 Figure 86: Bin J Data 79 Figure 87: Bin K Data 79 Figure 88: Bin L Data 80 x 1.0 Introduction Two billion people worldwide lack access to adequate sanitation or “facilities which ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact” (Ritchie & Roser, 2019).

Load more