Dave Barry, syndicated columnist, on several occasions has poked fun at the Congress for mandating the 1.6 toilets. In one column, Barry challenged his readers to write their "congress-humans" in support of Rep. Knollenberg's bill to change the law. Barry later said that as a result of that column, he got a huge amount of mail, "from Americans who care deeply about the issue of their toilets, and the vast majority of them HATE the new ones." As a result of his taking issue with the legislation, Barry was contacted by a member of Contractors 2000, an association of independent plumbing contractors. He was told that after much testing this association had a toilet they wanted Barry to try. Barry doesn't mention the brand name of the toilet, but he says, "I cannot speak highly enough of this toilet. It is an inspiring example of American ingenuity and engineering know-how." For the name of this toilet, you'll have to write Contractors 2000, 2179 Fourth St., St. Paul, MN, 55110.
On 1 Nov '98, under the title "Maple Leaf Menace for The Washington Post Magazine Barry opens his column by saying, "I say it's time "leaders" in Washington stopped blathering about sex and started paying attention to the issues that really MATTER to this nation, such as whether we should declare war on Canada." He goes on the reveal that Americans are crossing the Canadian border near Detroit to purchase 3.5-gallon-per-flush toilets. Barry rants on in shock that people can simply waltz across our borders with illegal toilets supplied by ruthless Canadian toilet cartels headed by greed-crazed Canadian toilet kingpins who will stop at nothing to push their illicit wares on our vulnerable society.
Fast forward to 10 June 2001. Barry is still ranting against the government attempt to "cripple our toilets". Barry opens his column
Wit's End in The Washington Post Sunday Magazine with a warning ... TASTEFULNESS ADVISORY: Do not read this column if you are eating, or plan to eat ever again. Thank you.
Then goes on to explain: "Recently I watched as a professional engineer attempted to flush fermented bean curd down a toilet. This was not some fun engineer prank. This was a laboratory test conducted at the research center of the National Association of Home Builders, which is trying to develop a laboratory test for toilet per-formance that simulates the challenges faced by toilets in the real world".
John O. Nelson, a Civil Engineer, retired manager of a water utility and Warren Liebold who ran New York's toilet replacement program have put together a report of customer satisfaction responses on different ULFT brands by Water Conservation Professionals responding to an e-mail survey from the American Water Works Association's WaterWiser Conference.
WHICH ONE IS BEST ?
Water Management, Inc. Toilet Testing Labs
Except for the extremely rare situation, the single most cost-effective water efficiency measure centers on the toilet. For this reason, Water Management, Inc. (WMI), (a sponsor of Toiletology 101) has engaged in extensive testing of all types and makes of toilets. They have discovered that certain models by different manufacturers work better than others under specific site conditions. Some models work better than others under high pressure, some designs excel in floor-mounted toilets, but offer rather poorly performing wall mounted models, and vice versa. WMI says, "Almost all models work inefficiently if not maintained or repaired properly. It is extremely easy for maintenance personnel to install the wrong flapper in a tank toilet or the wrong diaphragm in a flushometer valve."
Water Management, Inc. designs and implements water efficiency programs for Multi-unit Residential Properties, Public Housing Authorities, Federal and State Facilities, Military Complexes, Hotel, Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional properties. The majority of their business comes from long-term, performance-based programs in which their compensation is based on a share of the savings generated by their work. This long-term orientation guides every decision they make; their bottom line depends on quality equipment being installed.
NOTE: If at all possible try to use a toilet under live conditions before you commit to buying it. Some of the pressure assisted toilets are quite noisy.
http://www.denverwater.org/cons_xeriscape/conservation/pdfs/mapdata.pdf
Maximum Performance (MaP) of Toilet
Fixtures - Sorted by Manufacturer
http://www.cwwa.ca/pdf_files/Map%2011th%20Edition%20Full%20Report1.pdf
Important: This report, originally published in 2003 with the test results
for the initial group of toilet fixtures, is periodically updated
(approximately every four to six months) and made available free-ofcharge
on the websites of the Canadian Water and Wastewater
Association (CWWA), the California Urban Water Conservation
Council (CUWCC), the U.S.-Canadian Alliance for Water Efficiency
(AWE) and Veritec Consulting Inc. (see web addresses below).
Individual agencies, municipalities, green building organizations,
publications, and manufacturers are free to link to these sites provided
credit is given to the authors.
http://www.cwwa.ca/freepub_e.asp
http://www.cuwcc.org/MapTesting.lasso
http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org
http://veritec.ca
http://www.cwwa.ca/pdf_files/MAP%2013th%20Edition%20-%20February%202009.pdf
1.0 BACKGROUND
Although virtually all toilet models sold in Canada and the U.S. meet both the flush volume and
performance requirements of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) and the American
National Standards Institute/American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ANSI/ASME), there
remains some question as to whether models that meet the minimum certification requirements
also meet the expectations of the consumer. What’s more, since certification testing offers only
a pass/fail grading, there is currently no easy way to distinguish between superior and marginal
toilet models available in the market.
Most toilet fixtures destined for residential and light commercial applications exceed customer
performance expectations while flushing with no more than 6 litres (1.6 gallons). However,
research concluded that there were also some certified and commercially available models that
do not meet customer expectations. There are two key concerns:
1) Fixtures that fail to meet the 6-litre maximum flush requirements of the CSA or the 1.6-
gallon requirements of the ANSI/ASME1 result in toilets that flush with either too much or
too little water; and
2) Fixtures that do not flush effectively usually result in customer complaints and
occasionally the need for double flushing.
Until 2003, however, there was no convenient way for the customer to readily distinguish
between good and marginal performers. In addition, this lack of information on toilet
performance levels created a negative perception regarding all 6-litre (1.6-gallon) fixtures in
general. Instead, we believe that these negative perceptions should be focused only on those
toilet fixtures clearly identified (through testing) as the “bad apples”.
Fortunately, the plumbing industry responded positively to the performance issues of the past.
The fixtures available in the marketplace today are significantly better performers than those
MaP tested as recently as 2003. Much of this improved performance can be attributed to the
MaP test and its acceptance by the marketplace. Plumbing manufacturers are to be
commended for developing and delivering outstanding toilet fixtures to the marketplace today.
We would hope that the negative reputation of 6L (1.6g) toilet fixtures gained in the 1990s would
be entirely “flushed away” by the current generation of superior product.
Although other toilet performance studies have been completed, none of them was performed
using test media as realistic as that used in this test, nor has a quantifiable performance
benchmark – based on the results of relevant medical data – been established.
We developed the Maximum Performance (MaP) testing to identify how well popular toilets
models perform bulk removal using a realistic test media, and to grade each toilet model based
on this performance. A soybean paste having similar physical properties (density, moisture
content) to human waste was used in combination with toilet paper as the test media. In
addition to using a realistic test media, all toilet samples are adjusted, where possible, to their
rated flush volume (typically 6 litres / 1.6 gallons) prior to testing to ensure a level playing field.
The original testing protocol required the soybean paste to be extruded through a 7/8-inch (22-
mm) die and cut into 50-gram specimens (each specimen approximately 100 mm or 4 inches in
length). Toilet models were subjected to progressively larger loadings (in 50-gram increments)
until the unit failed to completely clear the bowl in two of three attempts, or to fully restore a
1 Certification testing is intended to ensure that each model meets a specific set of minimum requirements
for health and safety, product integrity, and performance. There is no differentiation in certification
between a toilet model that just meets the minimum requirements and one that surpasses those
requirements.
minimum 50mm (2-in.) trap seal. Beginning with the 6th Edition of this report, the soybean
paste media has been encased as described in the test protocol (Appendix A). However,
organizations applying to have a fixture tested are now given the option of choosing either the
new encased test media OR the original uncased test media.
This 13th Edition of the MaP testing report supersedes all earlier editions. Approximately 140
new toilet fixture models are added in this edition (a number of which replaced models in the
11th Edition), bringing the total to nearly 730 different models measured for their flush
performance. Also, in accordance with the terms of MaP testing developed by the authors, all
models that were tested more than four years prior to this report were deleted from the report.
(Some previously tested models have been re-tested or discontinued by their manufacturer and
also deleted from the report.)
Beginning with the 4th Edition only a single sample of each toilet model was required to be
submitted for testing (previous requirement was two samples). This change was made because
of the relative consistency in model performance noted in earlier MaP testing and to better align
MaP testing requirements with those of other testing agencies.
The original MaP report (2003) contained information on replacement flapper interchangeability.
Information on checking and replacing toilet flappers can now be found on the web at:
www.toiletflapper.org.
Whereas MaP testing is strictly performance-related, it is also considered important that those
toilet models subsidized by water utilities (e.g., through rebate or other programs) sustain their
water savings over the life of the fixture. The L.A. Supplemental Purchase Specification (SPS)
was developed for this purpose and may currently be found at:
http://www.cuwcc.org/toilet_fixtures/LADWP_SPS_ULFTReqs_05-11-16.pdf
The original minimum performance benchmark adopted by MaP was 250 grams (250g) of
waste. That is, a toilet fixture should completely evacuate at least 250g of waste from the fixture
in a single flush action. This value is based on the results of a British medical study (Variability
of Colonic Function in Healthy Subjects) that identified 250g as the average maximum fecal size
of the male participants in the study. Thus, any toilet that meets or exceeds the 250g
performance threshold should meet customer expectations for flushing.
Overall, the MaP testing protocol has been very well-received by consumers, water providers,
architects and engineers, specifiers, builders, retailers, and manufacturers alike. Many water
agencies and municipalities in the U.S. and Canada consider the results of MaP testing when
evaluating which toilet models to promote, subsidize, or rebate.
It is important to note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also adopted
350g as the minimum performance threshold for high-efficiency toilets (HETs) promoted within
its new WaterSense program. Furthermore, most water utilities currently adopting toilet
replacement rebate and installation programs (with HETs) are also establishing their minimum
performance threshold at 350g (some are as high as 500g). Therefore, for the sake of
consistency, the requirements for UNAR (Uniform North American Requirements) for toilet
fixtures, which is virtually identical to the EPA’s WaterSense program2 for high-efficiency
models, has likewise adopted 350g as the minimum flushing performance threshold.
The EPA’s WaterSense program does not post performance scores for included toilet models;
models are simply certified as meeting the WaterSense requirements on a pass-fail basis, which
include the 350g threshold and other criteria. Independent of WaterSense, however, we will
continue to perform and report on MaP testing results via reports such as this.
2 Except that the WaterSense program confines its labeling to HETs ONLY. WaterSense and its toilet
specification may be accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/
For those of you who are in the market for a new toilet, you'll find information on 13 low-flush toilets from eight of the leading manufacturers ($75 to $940) in the May 1998 issue of Consumer Reports (P.O.Box 53029, Boulder, CO 80322-3029) on page 44. "In search of a better toilet" gives an explanation for the differences among the gravity-flush, the pressure-assisted, the pump assisted, and the vacuum-assisted; these are the different types of toilets available today in the U.S. The engineers at the Consumer Report lab consider the Gerber Ultra Flush the best value and highest performing toilet of the thirteen they tested.
The last time Consumer Reports tested toilets was for their February 1995 issue. The report is now several years old, regardless, it is still worth reviewing (check it out at your public library.) The report rates 32 brands or models that range in price from $65 to $815 for waste-removal, dilution, wash down, soiling and odors, drain carry and noise. Eight of the top ten toilets are pressure-assisted rather than the gravity-flow that is the traditional technology. The report includes a sidebar with the telephone numbers for 12 manufacturers of the low-consumption toilets mentioned in the article.
According to an article in Fine Homebuilding Magazine Thomas Pape, chairman of the Indoor Plumbing Committee for the American Waterworks Association Conservation Committee, says homeowners should consider buying the rounded-bowl toilets instead of the elongated variety. "These just seems to work better than the elongated bowl," according to Pape. "That's especially true in a setting that might be abusive. You get a better vortex action out of a round bowl."
"Low Consumption Toilets" continues on
Page
1,2,3,
4,
5,6
Disclaimer:
Information provided in these documents is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind,
either expressed or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose.
