Interesting article on head odors by Practical Sailor.
http://www.practical-sailor.com/blog/-10702-1.html
http://www.practical-sailor.com/blog/-10702-1.html
Head Odors Practical Sailor
- Thread starter med2463
- Start date
- Status
A quote from the PS blurb...
About Vanish Odor (the product that's no longer on the market): "Because this is a product that boosts the biological processes, it will not work as well in well-ventilated holding tanks."
That makes no sense. Bio-chem 101: Oxygen prevents odor...lack of oxygen creates odor. Bacteria break down organic matter equally well both in anaerobic and aerobic conditions. Bio-activity in anaerobic conditions produces anaerobic gasses...anaerobic gasses stink. Bio-activity in aerobic conditions produces carbon dioxide, which is odorless.
So how can any product that "boosts the biological processes" NOT work better---assuming that "works" means "prevent or eliminate odors" in a well ventilated tank than one that isn't???
About Vanish Odor (the product that's no longer on the market): "Because this is a product that boosts the biological processes, it will not work as well in well-ventilated holding tanks."
That makes no sense. Bio-chem 101: Oxygen prevents odor...lack of oxygen creates odor. Bacteria break down organic matter equally well both in anaerobic and aerobic conditions. Bio-activity in anaerobic conditions produces anaerobic gasses...anaerobic gasses stink. Bio-activity in aerobic conditions produces carbon dioxide, which is odorless.
So how can any product that "boosts the biological processes" NOT work better---assuming that "works" means "prevent or eliminate odors" in a well ventilated tank than one that isn't???
This was a simple editing error--I did not write nor review the post and this is the first I saw it. Other statements in the post aregee with what you say, that supporting an aerobic environment is important.
The post should have said "Because this is a product that boosts the biological processes, it will not work as well in poorly ventilated holding tanks."
There are actually 3 articles over the next few months. I don't know the schedule nor the final titles:And you can thank one of our members, Thinwater, for that article..!
--Holding tank chemicals and enhanced ventilation. As the blog post hints, ventilation and bio-active products took the day. I also expect a follow-up, as there were some new products that were too late.
--Vent filters. There were certainly differences; those that work and those that don't. One of the better units, Big Orange, is visible in the post. There has also been one on my boat for a year. But I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm sold on vent filters; I'm keeping mine, but there are other answers for other boats.This test is going to run for years; an initial report soon, with follow-ups.
--Hose permeability. Samples of Sealand Odorsafe and Trident 102 are visible in the post. We had our first failure--non-sanitation hose--within 6 months. This test is going to run for years; an initial report soon, with follow-ups. In addition to a variety of hoses on the 5-gallon holding tanks, my boat is now a multi-color test bed; I installed all of the left-overs to get some practical expereince it fitting them. BIG differences.
If you try to break down waste exclusively with aerobic bacteria the process is slow, prone to failure, and the dead aerobic bacteria become food for stinky anaerobic bacteria. The concept is to enhance the reduction-oxidation reaction, and the right mix of "bugs" is just a small part of the solution. Breaking down biowaste requires a cascading series of processes to control odor. You need to start with an anaerobic bacteria and oxygen free process to break down waste to simpler compounds then an aerobic bacteria and lot of oxygen to finish. The problem with a simple holding tank is it impossible to manage the transition; anaerobic to aerobic. You would need to aggressively add oxygen, dose with aerobic bacteria, some favored nutrients, stir, and patiently endure the stink until the bugs have a chance to consume the waste and oxidize the sulfides. This would be a tedious job for boaters - running your own wastewater treatment plant aboard.
I have had good results by minimizing the amount of waste held, flushing the tank at pump out with lots of freshwater to better remove biowaste, and avoiding the introduction of bug-killing things like formaldehyde, sodium hypochlorite (bleach) or salt water. This reduces the amount of biowaste in anaerobic degradation, and allows a flourishing and diverse (anaerobic/aerobic)bacteria colony capable of breaking down the waste AND odor causing sulfides.
Don't think most head users understand how much pumping is required to evacuate the head, and as a result the waste sits in the hoses (anaerobic), compromises the choker valve and seeps back into the head, and pump housing where sulfide gases can escape.
Holding tanks are not waste water treatment plants...
Although USCG certified Type II MSDs (treatment devices for boats 66' and larger) can be compared to waste water treatment plants, holding tanks cannot. Holding tanks are not septic tank systems or any other any type of SYSTEM...they have just ONE function: they STORE waste until the tank is pumped out or dumped. That's all a holding tank CAN do. So attempting to apply any waste water treatment processes/principles to a holding tank is a waste of time, effort, and expense. The ONLY goal in holding tank management is the elimination of odors.
Solid waste (which is at least 75% water to start with) and quick-dissolve TP dissolve fairly rapidly in water with or without any added bacteria or "digesters," although adding aerobic bacteria does facilitate breakdown and suppresses anaerobic bio-activiity. However, an aerobic environment is really all that's needed to eliminate odor. Aeration, when installed, operated and maintained correctly, can do it without the help of ANY bacteria or otherproduct in most tanks...as thousands of owners of the Groco Sweetank system Groco Sweetank installation instructions will confirm.
Don't think most head users understand how much pumping is required to evacuate the head, and as a result the waste sits in the hoses...
You are right about that...most quit pumping as soon as the bowl is empty. But it actually takes far less water than you think. However, it doesn't help that very few if any builders and yards know how to install a sanitation system.
Tanks SHOULD be within 6' of the toilet because that's as far as bowl contents from manual toilets (and most electric too) can move in the amount of time anyone will spend pumping a manual toilet or leave their finger on a flush button....yet I've seen tanks 20' or more from toilets...pumpout lines even longer (vent line are a whole 'nother subject). It rarely occurs to anyone to try incorporate some help from gravity into the plumbing. And boat owners simply repeat the builder's or original installer's mistakes when they replace tanks and plumbing.
NObody seems to know how to use the "dry" mode in a manual toilet to do more than pump the last of the water out of the bowl, 'cuz nobody ever bothers to read the installation instructions to find out that any toilet that's working anywhere close to factory spec can move bowl contents up to 6 linear feet and/or 4 vertical feet in the dry mode...so they flail away in the wet mode, filling up their tanks with flush water and still leave waste sitting in the hose to permeate it. Nor do 99% of of owners have a clue what the REAL function of a joker valve is...they think it's only suppose to prevent backflow, which is actually the LEAST important function of a joker valve. Search the Head Mistress forum for "joker valve 101" to learn what it really does and why it should be replaced annually. There's also been a lot of discussion about to use the dry mode to incease the number of flushes a tank can hold by as much as 100%, yet keep the head discharge hose cleaner than just flailing away in the wet mode. Check 'em out...you just might learn somethin'.
Although USCG certified Type II MSDs (treatment devices for boats 66' and larger) can be compared to waste water treatment plants, holding tanks cannot. Holding tanks are not septic tank systems or any other any type of SYSTEM...they have just ONE function: they STORE waste until the tank is pumped out or dumped. That's all a holding tank CAN do. So attempting to apply any waste water treatment processes/principles to a holding tank is a waste of time, effort, and expense. The ONLY goal in holding tank management is the elimination of odors.
Solid waste (which is at least 75% water to start with) and quick-dissolve TP dissolve fairly rapidly in water with or without any added bacteria or "digesters," although adding aerobic bacteria does facilitate breakdown and suppresses anaerobic bio-activiity. However, an aerobic environment is really all that's needed to eliminate odor. Aeration, when installed, operated and maintained correctly, can do it without the help of ANY bacteria or otherproduct in most tanks...as thousands of owners of the Groco Sweetank system Groco Sweetank installation instructions will confirm.
Don't think most head users understand how much pumping is required to evacuate the head, and as a result the waste sits in the hoses...
You are right about that...most quit pumping as soon as the bowl is empty. But it actually takes far less water than you think. However, it doesn't help that very few if any builders and yards know how to install a sanitation system.
Tanks SHOULD be within 6' of the toilet because that's as far as bowl contents from manual toilets (and most electric too) can move in the amount of time anyone will spend pumping a manual toilet or leave their finger on a flush button....yet I've seen tanks 20' or more from toilets...pumpout lines even longer (vent line are a whole 'nother subject). It rarely occurs to anyone to try incorporate some help from gravity into the plumbing. And boat owners simply repeat the builder's or original installer's mistakes when they replace tanks and plumbing.
NObody seems to know how to use the "dry" mode in a manual toilet to do more than pump the last of the water out of the bowl, 'cuz nobody ever bothers to read the installation instructions to find out that any toilet that's working anywhere close to factory spec can move bowl contents up to 6 linear feet and/or 4 vertical feet in the dry mode...so they flail away in the wet mode, filling up their tanks with flush water and still leave waste sitting in the hose to permeate it. Nor do 99% of of owners have a clue what the REAL function of a joker valve is...they think it's only suppose to prevent backflow, which is actually the LEAST important function of a joker valve. Search the Head Mistress forum for "joker valve 101" to learn what it really does and why it should be replaced annually. There's also been a lot of discussion about to use the dry mode to incease the number of flushes a tank can hold by as much as 100%, yet keep the head discharge hose cleaner than just flailing away in the wet mode. Check 'em out...you just might learn somethin'.
I just can't imagine wanting the hassle and maintenance of of a Type II or III MSD, not to mention the Amp Hour draw. And much of my local waters don't allow the treated discharge. That recognizes that most boaters are not qualified to operate a WWTP, and they will not perform per spec. Even the ~12 Ah/day draw of a couple of continuous bubblers wouldn't be worth it, and the joy would disappear entirely when I needed to pull the tank down to clean the cruded-up airstone. A smelly head is part of the deal.
I don't think you quite have a handle on "types" of MSDs...
A Type I is a treatment device for boats <66'...i.e the Lectra/San, ElectroScan, PuraSan... The amperage DRAW looks kinda scary, but actual consumption for a couple continuously aboard is only about 20 AH/day...more than many stereo systems. Anyone with an IQ that's only slightly higher than room temp can operate and maintain one.
Type II is a treatment device for boats 66' and up...Your boat isn't quite that big. They don't consume much power either, but they are a bit more maintenance intensive. However, if you had a boat big enough to need one, you'd almost certainly also have a professional captain and crew to maintain it.
A Type III is defined in federal law as ,"a device that is designed to prevent the overboard discharge of treated or untreated sewage or any waste derived from sewage." That's a holding tank. So if you have a holding tank you already have a Type III. ..and, between odor problems and, vent lines, pumpout facilities, y-valves, overboard discharge pumps, tank level indicators etc, maintaining a Type III is a MUCH bigger PITA than maintaining either a Type I or a Type II. The tank itself doesn't draw any power, but electric macerators and electric diaphragm pumps do...otoh, you could either go with a manual diaphragm pump or forego the ability to dump the tank altogether.
And much of my local waters don't allow the treated discharge. That recognizes that most boaters are not qualified to operate a WWTP, and they will not perform per spec.
Not true. What it really demonstrates is the woeful ignorance on the part of most boat owners of any knowledge whatever about treatment devices and how they work, or even what a Type III is. They believe anything that well-meaning but equally uninformed over-zealous environmental "saviors" tell 'em....very few do any real "homework" to find the truth....And laws that aren't needed get passed because politicians will pander to any bloc they can get to vote for 'em.
A Type I is a treatment device for boats <66'...i.e the Lectra/San, ElectroScan, PuraSan... The amperage DRAW looks kinda scary, but actual consumption for a couple continuously aboard is only about 20 AH/day...more than many stereo systems. Anyone with an IQ that's only slightly higher than room temp can operate and maintain one.
Type II is a treatment device for boats 66' and up...Your boat isn't quite that big. They don't consume much power either, but they are a bit more maintenance intensive. However, if you had a boat big enough to need one, you'd almost certainly also have a professional captain and crew to maintain it.
A Type III is defined in federal law as ,"a device that is designed to prevent the overboard discharge of treated or untreated sewage or any waste derived from sewage." That's a holding tank. So if you have a holding tank you already have a Type III. ..and, between odor problems and, vent lines, pumpout facilities, y-valves, overboard discharge pumps, tank level indicators etc, maintaining a Type III is a MUCH bigger PITA than maintaining either a Type I or a Type II. The tank itself doesn't draw any power, but electric macerators and electric diaphragm pumps do...otoh, you could either go with a manual diaphragm pump or forego the ability to dump the tank altogether.
And much of my local waters don't allow the treated discharge. That recognizes that most boaters are not qualified to operate a WWTP, and they will not perform per spec.
Not true. What it really demonstrates is the woeful ignorance on the part of most boat owners of any knowledge whatever about treatment devices and how they work, or even what a Type III is. They believe anything that well-meaning but equally uninformed over-zealous environmental "saviors" tell 'em....very few do any real "homework" to find the truth....And laws that aren't needed get passed because politicians will pander to any bloc they can get to vote for 'em.
Dear Miss Peggy;
Call them what you will, none of the USCG approved discharge treatment methods are suitable for near-shore waters, lakes, or rivers. There is no specification for nutrient removal, only bacteria, virus and suspended solids. And while the aerobic digesters (type II MSD) may work in theory, all it takes is some ignorant owner, a jug of bleach, and a flush to turn them into a straight sewer pipe to the water.
I used to get paid a handsome sum to design and permit wastewater discharge treatment systems. I got paid even more to help bail out violators after they lost control of their treatment. This isn't something that you turn regulated recreational boaters loose with. Offshore maybe, but once you get near-shore where we (maybe not you) have decided that we want to eat the shellfish, catch some fish, swim in the water, and not sail through algal scum, we need to (KISS) keep it simple - stick it in a tank and head for the pump out.
You really need to park the political stuff. We, the people who inherited and live within the Chesapeake estuary have made a majority decision that we will pass on a living, vital, and healthy Chesapeake Bay. That means that things will change. Do not call us ignorant.
Call them what you will, none of the USCG approved discharge treatment methods are suitable for near-shore waters, lakes, or rivers. There is no specification for nutrient removal, only bacteria, virus and suspended solids. And while the aerobic digesters (type II MSD) may work in theory, all it takes is some ignorant owner, a jug of bleach, and a flush to turn them into a straight sewer pipe to the water.
I used to get paid a handsome sum to design and permit wastewater discharge treatment systems. I got paid even more to help bail out violators after they lost control of their treatment. This isn't something that you turn regulated recreational boaters loose with. Offshore maybe, but once you get near-shore where we (maybe not you) have decided that we want to eat the shellfish, catch some fish, swim in the water, and not sail through algal scum, we need to (KISS) keep it simple - stick it in a tank and head for the pump out.
You really need to park the political stuff. We, the people who inherited and live within the Chesapeake estuary have made a majority decision that we will pass on a living, vital, and healthy Chesapeake Bay. That means that things will change. Do not call us ignorant.
EPA evaluation of type I MSDs
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r10008/600r10008.pdf
It's long, over 100 pages I recall. The reader will also need to look up POTW limits and surface water requirements to put it into proportion.
Are they good enough? Read the EPA opinion and then think what you like. I feel they are one solution.
No, I do not have one.
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r10008/600r10008.pdf
It's long, over 100 pages I recall. The reader will also need to look up POTW limits and surface water requirements to put it into proportion.
Are they good enough? Read the EPA opinion and then think what you like. I feel they are one solution.
No, I do not have one.
And while the aerobic digesters (type II MSD) may work in theory, all it takes is some ignorant owner, a jug of bleach, and a flush to turn them into a straight sewer pipe to the water.
And what makes that any worse than owners who have a holding tank and a macerator pump....who, btw, FAR outnumber the boats with treatment devices.
There's nothing political about provable fact. You seem to think that boat owners are indifferent to water quality and too stupid to operate and maintain treatment devices In fact, the opposite is true. Treatment devices are too expensive to install and then abuse or neglect. Boat owners who spend that kind of money for 'em want 'em to work.
I didn't notice that you're on the Chesapeake Bay until you mentioned it. It's NOT true that much of your local waters don't allow the treated discharge. In fact, Herring Bay is the ONLY "no discharge zone" on the whole Chesapeake Bay. The discharge of treated waste from a Type I or II MSD is legal everywhere else except in a couple of marinas...marinas are private property and can make their own rules.
And what makes that any worse than owners who have a holding tank and a macerator pump....who, btw, FAR outnumber the boats with treatment devices.
There's nothing political about provable fact. You seem to think that boat owners are indifferent to water quality and too stupid to operate and maintain treatment devices In fact, the opposite is true. Treatment devices are too expensive to install and then abuse or neglect. Boat owners who spend that kind of money for 'em want 'em to work.
I didn't notice that you're on the Chesapeake Bay until you mentioned it. It's NOT true that much of your local waters don't allow the treated discharge. In fact, Herring Bay is the ONLY "no discharge zone" on the whole Chesapeake Bay. The discharge of treated waste from a Type I or II MSD is legal everywhere else except in a couple of marinas...marinas are private property and can make their own rules.
And Deltaville, VA.
Also a few back bays near Norfolk.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/nodischarge/
Bought my boat there. I've been boared for inspection both places. They were pleasant enough.
Also a few back bays near Norfolk.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/nodischarge/
While the report is dated 2010, the most recent study was done in 2007 (after a lot of letter writing by those of use wanting the EPA to "rule" one way or another if these devices were "approved" for use or not) and was a replay of the testing done in the late 1980's on behalf of the Australian gov't.
Although the good folks at the EPA have finally, reluctantly released this report....the "approval" is still up in the air and I am told by the DC office that it likely will be for "quite some time" . No explanation given, to me, or to either Virginia Senator's office or Rep Wittman's office.
The comparisons assume that the shoreside treatment systems are working to their full capability, when in fact they often are not. Many marinas jsut pump the boat's holding tanks in to their septic tanks systems...which are notorious for poor treatment of waste.
As the raritan note indicates, this test was done against mid 1970's "standards".
Several of the tests were done to show what "overflowing" the device would do, something few of us would do if in use.
Be sure to read the manufacturer's comments as well.
All the best.
- Status