Urine passes test
What do you do in the wake of disaster where people are displaced and there is a crying need for shelter… but no building materials? An obvious alternative in many parts of the world would be to use mud bricks. It utilises cheap, local resources. But mud bricks need water, and water is a precious commodity which people need first and foremost simply to survive.
At the Shelter Conference in Geneva in November 2006, a UN-Habitat spokesman addressed precisely
this situation, in relation to the reconstruction problems in Darfur. Here the need for shelter was so great that it would require more timber than the entire number of trees in the region, and yet making mud bricks was not viable because all the water was needed for drinking. But sitting in the audience was Dr Victoria Harris, founder and CEO of the UK charity Architects for Aid (A4A) – an organisation formed to offer expert help in the reconstruction and development work done by NGOs. A4A specialises in helping provide “better, cheaper and more ecologically constructed buildings in post disaster’’. Dr Williams wondered if anyone had considered using human urine as an agent in making mud bricks, and launched a research project to find out.
There are currently 23,700,000 internally displaced people in about 50 countries, and roughly half the world’s population lack secure, clean water access. So the answer to the question posed by A4A could have far-reaching consequences. Architects for Aid launched the project by calling on the help of Professor Jeremy Till and his students from the architecture department at Sheffield University.
Tests showed that mud bricks made with human urine perform even better than those made with water alone – because urea is a good binder. Results indicated that older urine may produce even better results. There were no adverse indicators at all. Urine is sterile when produced which is an advantageous starting point. Contaminated urine can be sterilised with UV light (by leaving it in sunlight in clear plastic bottles). If the urine was stored for six months the ammonia in the urine would break down and destroy pathogens. The bricks made were subject to sniff tests, crush tests, scratch tests, pounding with water jets and soaking tests – all of which showed the toughening effects of the urine compared to the water. Several hundred standardised bricks were made and dried and pummelled in various controlled situations.
Urine’s storability means that resources can be collected over a period of time until they are needed. Precedent studies show that in most developing world contexts there is no particular squeamishness, or social or religious qualms about collecting human urine – indeed it is already frequently ‘harvested’ for use in fertilising crops. “This is truly innovative work,” commented Professor Till, “and there is certainly a PhD’s worth of additional work that can be done surrounding this”. A4A’s next steps are to call in as much collaboration as possible – from academics and NGOs so they can help as many aid agencies and shelter providers as they can. Professor Till said, “We work by helping other aid agencies and charities achieve viable built solutions. We aim to work for the long term. Buildings last. They are sustainable in a literal, temporal sense. And shelter is a matter not just for consideration in disasters and humanitarian crises but a long-term issue, a human rights issue.” He added that this work “has shown that some answers are found in unexpected places. Like the bladder. But are effective in their simplicity.”
MORE INFORMATION
www.architectsforaid.org
At the Shelter Conference in Geneva in November 2006, a UN-Habitat spokesman addressed precisely
There are currently 23,700,000 internally displaced people in about 50 countries, and roughly half the world’s population lack secure, clean water access. So the answer to the question posed by A4A could have far-reaching consequences. Architects for Aid launched the project by calling on the help of Professor Jeremy Till and his students from the architecture department at Sheffield University.
Tests showed that mud bricks made with human urine perform even better than those made with water alone – because urea is a good binder. Results indicated that older urine may produce even better results. There were no adverse indicators at all. Urine is sterile when produced which is an advantageous starting point. Contaminated urine can be sterilised with UV light (by leaving it in sunlight in clear plastic bottles). If the urine was stored for six months the ammonia in the urine would break down and destroy pathogens. The bricks made were subject to sniff tests, crush tests, scratch tests, pounding with water jets and soaking tests – all of which showed the toughening effects of the urine compared to the water. Several hundred standardised bricks were made and dried and pummelled in various controlled situations.
Urine’s storability means that resources can be collected over a period of time until they are needed. Precedent studies show that in most developing world contexts there is no particular squeamishness, or social or religious qualms about collecting human urine – indeed it is already frequently ‘harvested’ for use in fertilising crops. “This is truly innovative work,” commented Professor Till, “and there is certainly a PhD’s worth of additional work that can be done surrounding this”. A4A’s next steps are to call in as much collaboration as possible – from academics and NGOs so they can help as many aid agencies and shelter providers as they can. Professor Till said, “We work by helping other aid agencies and charities achieve viable built solutions. We aim to work for the long term. Buildings last. They are sustainable in a literal, temporal sense. And shelter is a matter not just for consideration in disasters and humanitarian crises but a long-term issue, a human rights issue.” He added that this work “has shown that some answers are found in unexpected places. Like the bladder. But are effective in their simplicity.”
MORE INFORMATION
www.architectsforaid.org