A Case Study of Delayed Action PIR Urinal-Controls in a University Setting and Their Impact before, during and after COVID-19
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors look at the application of delayed action Passive InfraRed sensors in controlling water use for urinal flushing. The study has shown that in the context of both high-use and low-use conditions in a university campus, grouped delayed action PIR urinal controls are more effective at
reducing and controlling water consumption than the other forms of PIR controls considered.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer and Editor
Thank you for taking the time to read my paper. This reviewers comments provided a good summery of the key elements of the paper, but hasn't provided any specific suggestions for changes or improvements. As such the following responses are in relation to 7 marked sections below
1) A couple of extra references have been added to the introduction section, strengthening the theoretical background of this study
2) The reviewer felt the cited references were relevant
3) Labelled diagrams have been added, expanding on the design and methods of this study, along with the accompanying expansion of the associated text
4) In the implications and conclusions section (lines 307-311) the total volume of water that was 'saved' over a year within this study has been included, along with what this represented as a proportion of the total institutional consumption, along with the ROI. This along with minor changes in the discussion has improved the compellingness and coherence of the study
5) This has been addressed though the presence of the new diagrams, along with the addition of the building baselevel consumption and change in table 4.
6) Authors are now cited directly in the text by name, improving the flow and highlighting the contribution to the theoretical background. Additional references have also been added.
7) The conclusions and implications section has been strengthened by the adding of financial and volumetric savings
Yours Faithfully
James Daly
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors make significant efforts to conduct the research following the water audit, which is really appreciated. I only have one comment on the results section. Further analysis can be done by investigating possible inferences and correlations. It would be interesting to see how the technologies meet the behaviors in operating the urinal systems.
Line 287 'though' should be 'through'
Author Response
Dear Reviewer and Editor
Thank you for taking the time to read my paper.
Regarding the 7 marked sections
1) The reviewer was happy with the content
2) The reviewer felt the cited references were relevant
3) The reviewer was happy with the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods
4) The reviewer was happy that the arguments and discussion of findings were coherent, balanced and compelling
5) This has been addressed though the presence of the new diagrams, along with the addition of the building's baselevel consumption and changes in table 4.
6) The reviewer was happy with that the paper was adequately referenced
7) The conclusions and implications section has been strengthened by the adding of financial and volumetric savings
Regarding the reviewers specific comments;
Minor changes have been made to the results section to include further inferences and interpretation on the data. However, the data has already been largely analysed already and produced very clear cut results.
I agree with the reviewer that it would be interesting to review how the technologies meet behaviours in operating the urinal systems. However, the technologies used in this study require no behvaioural interaction from the end users. There is also the added issue of the ethical challenges in monitoring public behaviour in washrooms and especially at urinals. Likewise this is likely to raise challenges if any surveying was done, due to the potentially ethical implications of asking people about their peeing habits. The only direct behavioural interaction that could be monitored independently would be with urinal flush controls is using manual flushes if paired with occupancy sensors. However, manual controls were not included for the reasons set out in the paper. An interesting further study would be to look at the behaviours and interactions from cleaning and maintenance staff. However, this was largely outside of the scope of this study.
Yours Faithfully
James Daly
Reviewer 3 Report
1) Add the authors for citations on lines 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46 and 225.
2) Make sure the reference style on lines 62, 63, 279, and 292 is consistent with the journal’s requirements.
3) Cite some supporting references for problems on lines 74-77.
4) What is the university’s urinal water consumption in comparison to the total?
5) How did you derive the experimental configurations as presented in Table 2?
6) What are the baselines for studied buildings?
7) It is good to include a diagram of the installed system.
8) Add a cost-benefit study, users’ feedback survey results, and building maintenance team feedback to make the proposed system more convincing.
9) How did you get the footfall count on line 245?
10) Please revisit the statement on lines 289 and 290. Should the word “automated” be changed to “non-PIR controlled automated flush/conventional automated flush”?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer and Editor
Thank you for taking the time to read my paper.
Regarding the 7 marked sections
A) A couple of extra references have been added to the introduction section, strengthening the theoretical background of this study
B) The reviewer felt the cited references were relevant
C) The reviewer was happy with the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods
D) In the implications and conclusions section (lines 311-315) the total volume of water that was 'saved' over a year within this study has been included, along with what this represented as a proportion of the total institutional consumption, along with the ROI. This along with minor changes in the discussion has improved the compellingness and coherence of the study
E) This has been addressed though the presence of the new diagrams, along with the addition of the building's baselevel consumption and changes in table 4.
F) The reviewer was happy that the paper was adequately referenced
G) The reviewer was happy with conclusions of this paper
Regarding the reviewers specific comments;
1) This has now been done
2)This has been updated to match
3)Additional references have now been added in this location
4)Unfortunately there is no way to know what the total volume of water used due to urinals is. This is due to the nature of only having building level metering available. Attempts were made during the initial water audit. However, due to the concealed and variable nature of the cisterns and their respective flow/refill rates, the initial estimates in some cases were greater than the total consumption of the buildings. This is why a control group of buildings was needed, to ensure that there were not wider changes happening in the consumption of buildings on the site.
In response to this question, we have now included the total volumetric reduction as a result of this study and what this represents in relation to the total university consumption- 8% or 16% of the non-residential water use.
5) Group 1 was the primary experimental group. However, during design it was discovered that a couple of buildings already had similar devices already installed, so were used to form group 2. Initially the Group 2 buildings were going to be excluded from the study. However, due to the implications of Covid19 lockdowns and the 'new normal' it was decided to include the data from these a s a stand alone group. Group 3 were installed early during the second phase of the study by Thames Water as a temporary measure, and as part of their smarter business visit scheme (temporary until the university rolled out the main install to these areas), and Group 4 was installed as part of a already planned and paid for works during the refurbishment of other buildings, but where the only change to a water consuming devices was to the urinals so it was deemed these could be included in the study. Much of this was already in the paper, but the text has been expanded to explain in more detail, spread across the different 'parts' of the methods section
6) The baseline volumetric average daily figures have been added in table 4. How these baselines were derived was already set out and explained in the methods section. Total volumetric savings and financial savings have now been added to the conclusions section in response to a different question by this reviewer.
7)Simplified diagrams have now been added as figures 1, 2 and 3
8) A non-specific, saving and ROI have been added to the implications and conclusions section. However, the exact value and cost of the works done, was not allowed to be included due to internal policy.
A specific feedback survey would have potentially yielded interesting results. However, the study did not have the resource or budget to cover this. Instead, in order to gather some of this feedback, it was decided to utilise the existing reporting system to monitor for increases in maintenance requests or complaints linked to urinals. As set out in the Staff and Student Feedback section
9) The location where the washroom referenced is located has previously been identified as the highest footfall area by our internal FM/H&S/Security teams. It is located on the ground floor of our only library, opposite the onsite campus supermarket and next to a student casual dining area. The building is also located approximately at the center of the campus.
10) The word "automated" has been changed for "continuous" in the first instance, and "uncontrolled" in the second.
Yours Faithfully
James Daly
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for accepting the paper and your feedback. The following minor changes have been made following the feedback of a different reviewer:
- In the ‘Challenges’ section an explanation of the reasoning behind why the total volume of water used by the cisterns was not known and therefore not included in the study.
- Further explanation of the development and reasoning behind the different groups was included after Table 2.
- A few lines were added to the ‘staff and student feedback’ section, stating that a specific feedback survey may have yielded interesting results. However, this was outside the scope of this study, and an explanation of the alternative process used to monitor issues and feedback.
- An explanation was added to the ‘staff and student feedback’ section explaining how a particularly high footfall area was identified.
- The difference between baseline water consumption and end water consumption per building was added to Table 2.
- Minor additional highlights have been added to the abstract and conclusion.
Yours Faithfully
James Daly
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for making changes/edits accordingly. I would accept the article in its present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for accepting the paper and your feedback. The following minor changes have been made following the feedback of a different reviewer:
- In the ‘Challenges’ section an explanation of the reasoning behind why the total volume of water used by the cisterns was not known and therefore not included in the study.
- Further explanation of the development and reasoning behind the different groups was included after Table 2.
- A few lines were added to the ‘staff and student feedback’ section, stating that a specific feedback survey may have yielded interesting results. However, this was outside the scope of this study, and an explanation of the alternative process used to monitor issues and feedback.
- An explanation was added to the ‘staff and student feedback’ section explaining how a particularly high footfall area was identified.
- The difference between baseline water consumption and end water consumption per building was added to Table 2.
- Minor additional highlights have been added to the abstract and conclusion.
Yours Faithfully
James Daly
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1) Include your responses to comment #4, “…university’s urinal water consumption compared to the total..”; #5 on the derivation of Table 2 experimental configurations; #11 on feedbacks; and #12 on footfall count; into the manuscript.
2) Add a water consumption difference percentage in the new Table 4.
3) Highlight some significant findings report in the text.
4) Other comments have been addressed sufficiently. Thank you.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer/Editor
Thank you for your comments
1)#4 has been added to the 'Challenges' section of the discussion. #5 has been included after Table 2. #11 and #12 have been added in section 4.3 'Staff and Student feedback;
2) The difference in water consumption has been added
3) Additional highlights from the report have been added to the abstract and conclusion.
Yours Faithfully
James Daly
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
