The purpose of this report is to summarize the conclusions for the odor control test of the Urine Containment Bag (UCB), P/N SDD46107234-306 in an environment simulating a space craft capsule. JSC 65891, Odor Control Test Plan of the Urine Containment Bag (UCB) for Orion Utilization, documents the test plan. The details of the test set-up and data reduction are detailed in the WSTF test report for this test WSTF #10-44500, Odor Control Test Plan of the Urine Containment Bag (UCB) for Orion Utilization,. This document outlines the project conclusions and forward plans with regard to trash containment for Constellation

Casper, Stephanie

Williams, Nichole M. M.

NASA Technical Reports Server

JSC-65933 
Odor Control Test Report of the Urine Containment Bag 
(UCB) for Orion Utilization 
Verify this is the correct version before use 
Date September 2010 
Revision Baseline 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center 
Houston, Texas 77058 
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20150012215 2019-08-31T07:41:57+00:00Z
JSC-6593.3 
Odor Control Test Plan of the Urine Containment Bag 
(UCB) for Orion Utilization 
Prepared by: 
Approved by: 
Signature Sheet 
·~N 
.. "~DDJ~­
/Nichole M. M. Williams 
Constellation Portable Equipment and Pyrotechnics, Manager 
National Aeronautic and Space Administration 
Lyndon R Johnson Space Center 
Houston, Texas 
JSC-65933 
Change Record 
Rev. Date Originator Approvals Description 
NC 9/2010 N. Williams Baseline 
JSC-65933 
APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS 
The following documents, of the exact issue and revision shown, form a part of this specification to 
the extent specified herein. 
Document Title/Citation 
JSC-65891 Odor Control Test Plan of the Urine Containment Bag 
(UCB) for Orion Utilization 
WSTF #10-44500 Cx Urine Containment Bag Testing, Special Test Data 
Sept 2010 
CxP 70024 Constellation Program Human-Systems Integration 
Requirements 
Anxiety Disorders Edition 16 (2002) The relationship between disgust sensitivity and 
avoidant behavior: Studies of clinical and nonclinical 
samples 
SentBlocker Product Data ScentBlocker® Robinson Outdoors Products, Robinson 
Outdoors Products, n.d. Web. 31 Aug. 2010. 
Expert Report of Donald Thompson, PhD Thompson, Donald, Ph.D. "Expert Report of Donald 
Thompson, Ph.D." ScentLok. ALS Enterprises, Inc. 7 
Aug. 2006. Web. 31 Aug. 2010. 
4 
JSC-65933 
Purpose 
The purpose of this report is to summarize the conclusions for the odor control test of the Urine Containment Bag 
(UCB), P;N SDD46107234-306 in an environment simulating a space craft capsule. JSC 65891, Odor Control Test 
Plan of the Urine Containment Bag (UCB) for Orion Utilization, documents the test plan. The details of the test 
set-up and data reduction are detailed in fhe WSTF test report for this test WSTF #I 0-44500, Odor Control Test 
Plan of the Urine Containment Bag (UCB) for Orion Utilization,. This document outlines the project conclusions 
and forward plans with regard to trash containment for Constellation, 
1.0 Test Conclusions 
Based on the results outlined in WSTF #10-44500, there are several conclusions based on the usage of this bag for 
an Orion Block 0 mission. 
First, for fhe first -30 hours of the test, the total hydrocarbon content found in the filled UCB chamber atmosphere 
compared very closely to the measurements found in the chamber atmosphere of the empty bag. This implies that 
for this time period, fhe odor from the filled bag was similar to fhe odor of the empty bag. The total hydrocarbon 
content measured was due to the filled UCB off-gassing, not fhe odor from fhe trash. So, for a short duration 
mission, or if trash is off-loaded to ISS after docking, the Urine Containment Bag is a very acceptable option for 
containment of trash odor. 
Second, once fhe odor from the filled UCB started to permeate fhrough the UCB into fhe chamber volume, it 
continued to permeate fhroughout the remainder of the two week test. The slope offhe increase is dependent upon 
temperature. In WSTF #I 0-44500, Figure 13, it is clear that when the temperature is lowered from 85 op to 75 °F, 
the slope of the total hydrocarbon content measured decreases. Therefore, fhe time of acceptability for the trash 
odor is directly dependent upon the temperature at which fhe trash is stowed. 
Third, the human odor panel test results showed an increase in the offensiveness of the odor from the filled UCB 
over the duration of the test. In addition, the after effects (bad taste in moufh, headaches, nausea) increased over fhe 
test duration. In WSTF #10-4450, Tables 6-9, fhe after effects of each panel member are noted. Therefore, if trash 
is to remain on the Orion vehicle for two weeks, there may be negative effects on the crew. 
Finally, the Urine Containment Bag clearly held some odor, since the slope drastically increased upon opening the 
bag at the end of the test (Figure 13, WSTF #I 0-4450). Therefore, a bag such as fhe UCB is significantly better than 
trash stowed without a containment bag. 
In addition to fhe conclusions above, there are several conservative aspects of this test that should be highlighted: 
I. Since the trash is present at the start of the test, it implies fhat fhe trash is generated at fhe time of launch. 
The trash used in this odor test (food wrappers, filled diapers, and filled emesis bags) will take a certain 
amount of time to generate and accumulate. 
2. The volume of emesis, urinet feces) and food trash is very conservative considering two crew members. 
3, It is possible that improvements will be made to the temperature profile for Orionl so using the extreme 
high temperature of 85 op was very conservative. 
4. Limited air circulating in the vehicle and in the suit were not taken into consideration and could improve 
the local odor at the crew position, 
5. The odor test did not solely test the Urine Containment Bag as a method of containment for trash. It tested 
the effectiveness of the MAG and Ziploc Bag tOr containing the urine and and the Emesis Bag and 
Ziploc Bag for comalning emesis, It also tested the effectiveness of the ISS Waste Bag to contain trash and 
Emesis Bags, If any of those primary methods of containment failed during the two-week test duration, 
then the lJCB became the primary method of containment. 
5 
JSC-65933 
2.0 Feasibility of Alternative Options 
The final conclusions of the two-week odor test for the Urine Containment Bag (UCB) P:N SDD 46107234-306 
revealed that the UCB contained odors for approximately 30 hours. The odor panel members could detect a smell 
for the filled UCB at 48 hours. The range of smell (taking the average ranking of each member over the 9 samples) 
at 48 hours was from 0.89 to 2.44 on a scale of -4 to 4 (-4 ~extremely pleasant, 4 ~extremely irritating/revolting). 
The goal of the project team was for the UCB to contain the odors for at least the 48 hours. Still trying to work 
towards this goal, the project team has continued to research possibilities which could improve upon the design of 
the UCB or replace it completely. 
Option 1: Carbon Spray 
The first option would be to coat the outside of the UCB with a carbon spray. The carbon spray would have the least 
affect on the design of the Urine Containment Bag. Two examples of carbon sprays are the White Lightning Spray 
and Evolve3 Field Spray. The sprays, if applied evenly to the outside of the bag, would allow carbon molecules (or 
carbon-like molecules) to adhere to the surface of the Nomex material of the UCR These molecules work to 
"eliminate scent by odor adsorption and chemical neutralization" (ScentBlocker:ID Robinson Outdoors Products). 
The Evolve3 Field Spray is promoted as using enzymes for odor control and bacterial control (bacteria contributes to 
the odor). 
The drawback to using these sprays is that a person cannot know if the spray is evenly coated onto the white Nomex 
surface without significantly soaking the material (only then would the darker shade be seen). These sprays have a 
tendency when applied in heavy volume to "flake" offthe material, which could lead to safety issues. Most carbon 
or carbon-like sprays are highly flammable so if"flaking" occurs, this introduces a new hazard of free-floating 
flammable particles. 
Option 2: Carbon Liner 
The second option that could be used to improve upon the design of the Urine Containment Bag is the integration of 
a carbon web or liner. A carbon liner could be placed or sewn in along the inside of the UCB. One example of a 
carbon liner is the ScenTote Carbon Web Adsorber Replacement The activated carbon within the liner relies 
primarily "on the physical sorption of gases into the unique, accessible internal pore structure. Larger molecules can 
readily penetrate the macropores and mesopores. As the chemicals pass into the structure and reach finer pores, the 
surface attractions increase greatly. The sorbed material can move into the structure until it reaches a pore size with 
excellent surface attraction that will trap the odor chemical in place" (Thompson, 16-17). This prevents the 
molecules of the odor chemical from traveling through the carbon liner to reach the outside air. 
The drawback to a carbon liner is that it must be secured in some manner so the liner remains along the inside walls 
of the bag even when the bag is in different orientations. The design of the UCB would have to be altered to 
accommodate the carbon liner, which would lead to longer manufacturing time. However, this option only alters the 
inside and does not compromise the Nomex outer layer. The UCB would remain non-flammable. 
Option 3: New Bag 
Another option to try to better contain the odors would be to replace the Urine Containment Bag, and certify a new 
bag. Two options for hunting bags that are designed to control odors are the Scent-Lok Rugged Duffle Bag and the 
Seen Tote Storage Bag. Both these bags are similar in volume to the current Urine Containment Bag. The Scent-
Lok Rugged Duffle Bag is made of a poly-cotton blend with the carbon incorporated into the poly-cotton. The 
Seen Tote Storage Bag is made from canvas. On the top opening/flap of the canvas bag, there is a pocket that holds 
the Carbon Web Adsorber. The Seen Tote does not have a carbon liner for the entire inside of the bag. 
The drawback to this option is the bags are COTS hardware, and would have to be certit!ed for flight Both these 
bags are t1ammable so appropriate safety precautions would have to be followed. 
3.0 Conclusions 
Due to funding reductions, this work will be shelved until direction and funding dictate a forward path. The data 
from this test shows that the Urine Containment Bag is a feasible option (as is) for short duration missions with a 
6 
JSC·65933 
certain expectation of odor penetration and undesirable side effects. For a long duration mission, the UCB alone 
wm not be an acceptable odor containment method. A more complex bag with filtering or a vented vehicle will be 
required to contain odors for longer periods of time. 


Odor Control Test Report of the Urine Containment Bag (UCB) for Orion Utilization

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server