| FLUSH WITH PRIDE: NAHB TESTS PERFORMANCE OF 49 POPULAR TOILETS |
|---|
| 10/29/2002 |
| UPPER MARLBORO, MD — (PRNewswire) The NAHB Research Center, in cooperation with Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Wash., and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) of Oakland, Calif., released the “Summary Test Report: Water Closet Performance Testing.” The report details the results of extensive testing on the performance of 49 of the most popular toilets in the United States. The objective of the study was to develop information on product performance, water savings reliability, and physical characteristics that will assist consumers in evaluating products and making purchase choices. During the testing, Research Center laboratory technicians determined the flushing performance, flush volume, trap diameter, water spot area, and other characteristics of each toilet. Flushing performance was tested using a series of floating and sinking sponges and paper to simulate waste loading in the toilet. A Flush Performance Index (FPI), which may be used as a general indication of expected performance, was calculated based on how much material remained in the bowl after flushing. Researchers also measured the flush volumes after the original flappers were replaced with generic replacement flappers. While most of the tested fixtures were designed to flush at the standard 1.6 gallons per flush, a few had design volumes significantly less than the standard. Testing included gravity, pressure-assist, and vacuum-assisted models, as well as a few special models, such as dual-flush, flapperless, and air-assist units. The toilets used in the testing are generally available nationwide at large home improvement centers and plumbing supply stores but were selected for their availability on the West Coast. Flushing toilets is the largest use of water inside most U.S. homes — on average, eighteen gallons of water are used per person, per day. Many water utilities encourage their customers to replace their inefficient toilets with more water-efficient models. However, not all water-efficient toilets have the same flushing performance. The study also included testing three early-model, low-flow toilets that were known to have performed unsatisfactorily in individual residences. Though the large majority of the new models tested performed better than these three toilets, the study did not establish a minimum acceptable FPI. The Index is useful as an estimate of relative flushing performance of different models, but the results still need to be interpreted with recognition of the differences between actual use and testing protocol, and the associated testing variability. Two units of most major models were tested, and some variation was seen between units of the same model. Besides flushing performance, when purchasing a toilet consumers may want to consider the persistence of water savings over time, as well as other features. Normal maintenance for most toilets includes flapper replacement every three to five years. Testing results showed increases in water use for some toilet models when the original flapper was replaced by a “universal” replacement flapper such as are widely available in hardware and home improvement stores. Consumers should either use a replacement flapper recommended by their toilet manufacturer, or use the test results to select toilet models where flushing volume is not compromised by the use of a “universal” replacement flapper. The study included toilets ranging in price from $45 to $450, but price was not a factor in flushing performance. There were both high-and low-priced toilets that displayed satisfactory flushing performance. Research Center president Terre Belt said, “Upon the federally-mandated conversion of maximum water usage from 3.5 to 1.6 gallons per flush, homeowners, builders, and others in the residential construction industry recognized problems with flush performance. We believe that these test results will be helpful to all consumers, including builders, who are interested in selecting the most resource-efficient toilet fixtures.” To download the study report, including a summary of the testing results, visit http://www.nahbrc.org or http://www.toolbase.org. For more information, call the NAHB Research Center’s Toolbase Hotline at (800) 898-2842. |
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
From plumbing failures to environmental near disasters, OHJ staffers dish on our worst and best moments.
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
Note that this testing fails to consider the big picture. After you flush it out of the toilet, you have to keep it moving thru the pipes. 1.6 gallons isn't always enough.
-- J.S.
I read the link and was pretty impressed with the method of testing. Bradley washfountain here in Wisconsin makes growlers for prisons. They include sinks in the package. They test with all sorts of stuff that the prison system specifies. Steel balls were one of the test items.
Unfortunately the link doesn't cover Mansfield toilets. My plumber thinks the world of those and is installing 3 in my cottage. I don't know how to say this with a highbrow air but I wish they had a component of the Seattle test in the link to replicate the offering of Highschool boys that bake their offering all day then try to clog the piping when they come home. Why do they even put toilets in highschools?
I don't think 16 gallons could make the plumbing work. Inline garbage disposal?
Look again - two Mansfield toilets were included in the study. They performed very well.
"A completed home is a listed home."
Thing were alot easier in the old days when we smoked inside and went to the bathroom outside. In the comming years, water will be a commodity worth more than oil.
sometimes board sometimes knot
"In the comming years, water will be a commodity worth more than oil."
I've heard lines like that before. Another popular one is a buzz phrase used by the media: "Our drindling supply of fresh water".
So where is this water going? I know there are a few places in the country that get their water supply from wells. But this is hardly the primary source of water anywhere in the midwest. I don't know of a single town in Illinois that doesn't get its water from lakes or streams.
The underground aquifers aren't drying up, they're just being overused. They're being constantly replenished by the rain.
So how can you justify a comment like that?Production is not the application of tools to material, but of logic to work.
To start I'm not an expert on the subject but, where do you think the rivers come from? I'd say some water is from rain, some from the snowload in the mountains and rest comes from the ice fields and glaciers in the mountains. We've been slowly chipping away at our water resourses, clear cutting and deforestation have lessened the snow the mountains hold. The ice fields are shrinking at an astonishing rate. Every year there is more and more demand for water from our industries, our cities keep growing. Places that never had water are getting water piped to them. Our demand increases, and there is less water to share every year. Saving a little water here and there adds up, and I'm all for it.
Besides, if you buy those small bottles of water to drink you're already paying more for water than oil.
The rivers, as you point out, come from rain.
Deforestation and/or clearcutting have nothing to do with the amount of water available to the rivers. If anything, there would be more runoff since the trees aren't there to use up the water.
I don't know how much water comes from glaciers and ice fields. But how do you think they got where they are? The snow falls on the mountains every year, and packs into the ice. I see no reason to think the snow is going to stop falling.
Look at it from another point of view - The town I live in gets its water from a lake. Every gallon I don't use just goes over the spillway the next time it rains. The water that I use is cleaner when it comes out of the sewage plant than it is when it comes out of the lake. Based on that, it seems to me that using as much water as possible is better.
Saying that we're "slowly chipping away at our water resourses" is just a buzz phrase that the media uses.Don't be too choosy or stingy about whom or how often you love.
I believe the glaciers and the ice fields are remains from the last ice age, you don't get 100's of feet of ice from packed snow, but thats not the point. I guess there are alot of things that will contribute to a future shortage of water. pollution is part of it, our constant march ever outward. When I was young my father used to take us on canoe trips in northern Saskatchewan. We would portage off the Otter River onto some pretty pristine waterways, you could drink right out of the lakes. That was 30 years ago, and you can't drink out of those lakes anymore, what happened? 200 years ago I bet you could drink out of almost any lake in North America, 100 years ago there were less and today, almost none. What about the next 100 years, the next 50 years? To think that the skies will keep opening up with crystal clear water and give us life for ever after is a pipe dream. To say we are not affecting our future, a delusion. Clean drinking water will become a commodity, its the only thing we truly, can't live without.
Gordsco
Pollution? Seems to me we've made a great deal of progress on that in the past 20 years. The water around where I live is less poluted now than it was when I was a kid.
I know people used to drink straight out of streams way back when. But I think that's more of a sanitary thing than a pollution thing. Back on the farm, workers used to share a single jug of water with a corn cob for a stopper. Then it was the shared plastic thermos. Now everyone brings their own bottled water. Personal standards have changed more than the water.
Don't guess there's much chance we'll agree on this one. You think I'm delusional, and I think something roughly similar of you. I'm currently fasting to protest hunger strikes.
I think we have three issues here. Can we get some agreement on these?
1. Supply.
2. Quality.
We therefore have to clean the water we consume more as it gets more polluted. That increases the cost of suppling water. This explains the shift in the the water supply curve.
3. Demand
So we have a typical supply- demand equilibrium. If the demand and supply conditions are right, water could be more expensive then oil - but what exactly is the point.
Let's not forget really stupid public policies. In places like California, which sells water to farmers for irrigation at heavily subsidized prices and transfers the cost to urban dwellers. The farm irragation by and large is the biggest consumer of California's water consumption. (Is anyone surprised?).
The price mechanisim is a very important signal for effecient allocation of resources. You start interfering with those signals and we all pay for the consequences.
paul
"The quality of the water is diminishing because people dirty water."
I don't believe that's true, in general. The EPA has cracked down on so much stuff that I think water quality is improving overall.
"As populations increase the demand for water increases."
True, but the population of the USA isn't increasing all that fast. (As best as I can remember)
"The farm irragation by and large is the biggest consumer of California's water consumption."
Don't see anything wrong with that. If the urban population is subsidizing it, maybe that's wrong. But there's nothing wrong with irrigation, IMHO.
"The farm irragation by and large is the biggest consumer of California's water consumption."
"Don't see anything wrong with that. If the urban population is subsidizing it, maybe that's wrong. But there's nothing wrong with irrigation, IMHO."
You can subsidize the water used for irrigation as it is used and spread the cost around to the urban population or you can subsidize the water used for irrigation on the back end and pass the cost around via higher farm product prices. Either way, the same people pay the freight. I think the average bill payer would tend to complain louder and longer if the price of food jumped up. It's just seems easier to overlook or be unaware of a few extra cents or bucks on the water/sewer bill.
"...She's my sister, she's my daughter." Fay Dunaway
I still wince when I see Jack Nicholson getting his nostril sliced in that movie. California has always wrestled with water.
And don't even think about swiping any water from the Great Lakes. Go find your own! :) Let the thunder crack and the waves roar.
We're going on.
Good morning:
I don't believe that's true, in general. The EPA has cracked down on so much stuff that I think water quality is improving overall.
Sorry, I was not talking specifically about the US. It may be true that the overall water quality in the US is improving. And assuming that everything else remains constant, the cost of purifying the water may go down.
"As populations increase the demand for water increases." ...True, but the population of the USA isn't increasing all that fast. (As best as I can remember)
Again, I was not just referring to the US. But in the US and in most industrialized countries, per capita consumption is also increasing, so demand grows faster than the population.
"The farm irragation by and large is the biggest consumer of California's water consumption." ...Don't see anything wrong with that. If the urban population is subsidizing it, maybe that's wrong. But there's nothing wrong with irrigation, IMHO.
Read what I said. The distortion of the pricing mechanism is what I have a problem with, not the irragation. Whether or not irragation is the best use of the water is another matter which undistorted price signals will determine.
paul
"The total supply of water on the planet (the water stock) has and will remain constant"
I thought water was made up of 1 part hydrogen, 2 parts oxygen. So if I burn 100 hydrogen atoms I don't lose the hydrogen because all the hydrogen on the planet remains constant?
What goes up must come down?
Hi:
I admit I'm not a chemist (is there someone out there who is?). I believe that the output of burning hydrogen is water - mixing oxygen with the hydrogen (the burning process) creates water.
Persumably we could export our water to another planet, but other than that the stock of water is pretty constant.
paul
I sometimes wonder if we aren't 'tying up' some of the supply of water. What about mixing concrete - - when it dries, does all the water evaporate, or is there some still remnant in it. What about all the dirty diapers, containers of food in the landfill sites. These are 'locked up' Quit snorting, I'll bet it adds up.
As for less polluted, what about all the loons etc dying along the shores of Lakes Erie and Huron. Botulism. From the gobi fish and zebra mussels introduced, which are distubing the pollution on the lake bottom.
We know that fresh water isn't endless, most of the water in the world in salt. Aquifers aren't replenished as fast as we draw from them. Glaciers, as mentioned above, are retreating faster and faster. I think another concern if the re-arrangement of the world's climate. While the Prairies suffer from a drought, other areas of North America are flooded. Don't complain about the farmers using water if your belly is full. If you ate today, thank a farmer.
Did you know that in the 3 day aftermath of Sept 11, 2001, while all the planes were grounded, there was a measurable shift in the climate profile. Day/night highs/lows had a wider swing than in recent meterological records. This was due to the lackof emissions into the air.
I am worried about the world that we are leaving for the kids. The Native North Americans say that you are responsible for the next seven generations. Ha, we don't even care about our own.
You're right Boss, we have cleaned up our act in many ways and I think we are making progress but we come from different perspectives. The quality of your river has improved from when you were a child and the streams I used to swim in are almost choked out. The Bow River in Calgary where I live now begins in the mountains 100 mi. west of here. It has some of the best trout fishing in the world yet they recommend you only eat one fish per month and pregnant women aren't supposed to eat them at all. They've found pesticides and radioactive particles on the glaciers at its headwaters, at 8,000 ft (a mile and 1/2 high).
I don't think we'll find a consensus on this one Boss. Can we agree to disagree?
I apologize for the delusional reference.
Respectfully Yours,
Gord
" Can we agree to disagree?"
I think I can live with that.Did you hear about the dyslexic guy who walked into a bra?
>> I believe the glaciers and the ice fields are remains from the last ice age,
>> you don't get 100's of feet of ice from packed snow ...
Packed snow is exactly where glacial ice comes from. And it doesn't take all that long. For instance, Incline Village, NV routinely gets over 200 inches of snow per year. If half of that makes it through the summer on the shady side of the mountain, and packs down to ice at a ratio of 10:1, then it only takes 120 years to accumulate 100 feet of ice.
There may be ice age remnants in the continental US, but most glaciers that provide municipal water supplies are clearly renewable resources. Boulder, CO gets its water from a glacier that I believe recycles in less than 100 years.
Don't forget even in areas where we have an over abundance of fresh water. The codes are specifying low flow toilets. In most municipalities with sewage treatment plants the costs on your water bill are broken down to approx. 2 dollars for treatment and 1 dollar for supply for every three dollars you pay.
"Packed snow is exactly where glacial ice comes from."
I was at the Columbia Ice Fields north of Banff Alberta last summer. Its quite a long walk from the parking lot to the foot of the Athabaska Glacier, about 3/4 mile. They have these markers you pass on the way, the first one, by the parking lot, says 1924, the next 1936, and so on up this hill that tell you where the bottom of the glacier was at that time, and I imagine it was several stories thick.
I guess it doesn't snow as much as it used to
Edited 11/3/2002 2:36:09 AM ET by GORDSCO
> Packed snow is exactly where glacial ice comes from.
True. More interesting, the annual layers can be identified and counted in core samples going back thousands of years. And the thickness of the layers tells how much snow there was in a particular winter. It's like counting tree rings. That's how the second Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP II) helped to verify that the climate shifts corresponding to the downfall of the old and middle kingdoms of Egypt were worldwide events.
-- J.S.
Ottawa,on the Illinois river where the it meets the Fox river gets its water from a well. Go figure all that water flowing by and they pump from a well. Ransom uses a well but they are a small town Dwight uses a well as they are a land locked town . just to name a few. Don
The point about aquifers is that it takes, on the average, about 300 years for a drop of water, once it hits the ground, to make it into an aquifer where it can be used again. We're draining them at a rate way faster than that.