The primary reason no-water urinals are used is to reduce costs and improve efficiency, but myths and misconceptions are common among facilities managers relating to this issue.
A recent 7-question survey conducted by Waterless Co., a manufacturer of non-water urinal systems and similar washroom products, asked about 500 people in July 2011 to compare waterless urinals to traditional styles.
Questions included cleaning and maintenance issues and how fast a no-water system pays for itself due to reduced water and sewer charges.
Answers to questions revealed 40 per cent believed a non-water unit actually costs more than a water-using urinal.
A further 40 per cent believed the costs “were about the same,” while only 20 per cent said they were less.
In regards to installation, 60 per cent believed it cost around the same for either system’s installation and 40 per cent thought it was less.
Klaus Reichardt, chief executive officer and founder of Waterless Co., said: “A waterless system typically costs less (to purchase and install) than a conventional flush urinal because it has fewer plumbing components.”
Cleaning urinals was another area of contention with 40 per cent surveyed believing cleaning and maintaining water/waterless urinals was the same, 40 per cent said it took more time to clean a waterless urinal and only 20 per cent said it took less.
The majority of people believed the causes of urinal malodours was urine deposits while the remaining surveyed said it was due to “lack of flushing.”
Key sanitation issues managers said they experience with water-using urinals were flushing that expels contaminants on surrounding surfaces and touching the flush valve contamination.
“The responses were a mixed bag,” said Klaus Reichardt.
“But unexpected were answers as to costs and the longer payback periods.
“I guess we have a little more educating to do on no-water urinal systems.”