Full report

Original page 1

. = . NASA Technical Memorandum 103888 Waste Streams Crewed Space An Update i<..-,7-) &.J .4-J in a Typical Habitat: M. A. Golub and T. Wydeven February 1992 (NASA-TM-I03888) WASTE STREAMS IN N92-31166 A TYPICAL CREWED SPACE HABITAT: AN UOOATE (NASA) 15 p National Aeronautics and Space Administration Unclas 0108038

Original page 2

Original page 3

NASA Technical Memorandum 103888 Waste Streams in a Typical Crewed Space Habitat: An Update M. A. Golub and T. Wydeven, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California February 1992 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center Moffett Field, California 94035 -100o

Original page 4

Original page 5

Summary (P/C CLLS). This report aims to update and extend that compilation by the inclusion of the following data not A compilation of generation rates and chemical composi- considered in the prior reports: those data obtained from tions of potential waste streams in a typical crewed space Soviet literature relevant to life support systems for space, habitat, reported in a prior NASA Technical Memoranand those for various minor human wastes. Besides dum and a related journal article, has been updated. This including some additional data uncovered since complereport augments that compilation by the inclusion of the tion of the prior reports, we also reproduce the latest following new data: those data uncovered since comple- information on the Environmental Control and Life Suption of the prior report; those obtained from Soviet litera- port System (ECLSS) design parameters for Space Station ture relevant to life support issues; and those for various Freedom (Anon., 1990). minor human body wastes not presented previously (saliva, flatus, hair, finger- and toenails, dried skin and skin secretions, tears, and semen), but included here for purposes of completeness. These waste streams complement those discussed previously: toilet waste (urine, feces, etc.), hygiene water (laundry, shower/handwash, dishwash water and cleansing agents), trash, humidity condensate, perspiration and respiration water, trace contaminants, and dust generation. This report also reproduces the latest information on the environmental control and life support system design parameters for Space Station Freedom. Introduction For relatively short-duration human space missions, as in food, As in the prior reports, this one is again concerned with space shuttle flights, essential consumables (e.g., water, oxygen) are provided at launch, and the wastes generated are returned to Earth, in what is called openloop life support. However, for future long-duration human space missions - as in Space Station Freedom or a their counterparts on Earth, and where differences exist at a still later date, the establishment of a lunar base as fully as between the two types of closed systems, they are more of piloted mission to Mars - it is essential to close possible the major life support functions by recycling prod- think of the Space Station environment as a miniature water and air, by treating or recycling various waste of the model of the Earth. Thus, one may foresee the developucts, and by growing plants for food. Partial closure fur- ment of innovative schemes for adapting terrestrial waste atmospheric and water loops is now achievable, but ther closure is expected to result in minimizing launch weight by reducing the need for large quantities of expendables and may even eliminate resupply requirements (Evanich, 1988). As one facet of developing a fully regenerative or closedloop life support system for extended human space missions where resupply is not feasible, waste management or processing must be perfected, and this calls for an idenfeed The authors express their appreciation to David A. tification and characterization of the potential waste that Chaumette, M.S. in Aero-Astronautics from Stanford streams in a typical crewed space habitat. Towards end, we recently presented a compilation of generation rates and chemical compositions of the major waste streams emanating from humans and equipment in a 1990, Mark G. Ballin, of NASA Ames Research Center, for closed environment in space (Wydeven and Golub, 1991) that need to be factored into NASA's Physical/ Chemical Closed-Loop Life Support Research Project As before, we consider in this report a hypothetical longduration, human space mission in which food is supplied at launch, no recycling processes or scientific experiments are involved, and no plant growth (for food and/or oxygen and water regeneration) occurs. Thus, we disregard at this stage such waste streams as inedible biomass, those resulting from on-board experiments, and secondary streams arising from the processing of primary streams, such as ash from incineration of trash. For an examination of waste streams present in a space habitat having higher plants as a source of food, see the paper by Wydeven et al. (1989); and for a survey of waste recycling issues in bioregenerative life support and related matters, see the recent issue of Advances in Space Research (MacElroy et al., 1989). waste management for extraterrestrial closed environments and not with that of the "mundane" ten'estrial sphere, which is also a closed environment. However, the or, waste streams for a typical crewed space habitat have a quantitative character than qualitative. Indeed, one may management and recycling practices to future long-duration manned space missions, taking into consideration, of course, such factors as zero or partial gravity in space vish-vis Earth gravity, and different types of optimal power or energy sources used in space and on Earth. Reciprocally, novel procedures developed specifically for space application may well result in important spin-offs for waste management at the terrestrial level. University, who carried out a detailed literature survey that forms the basis for this updated report on waste streams in a space environment. Thanks are also due making available the ECLSS regenerative life support data (daily inputs and outputs) presented in table I.

Original page 6

Waste Stream Data first shuttle flight that employed a prototype trash compactor intended to provide data necessary for the design of a compactor for Space Station Freedom; compacted trash, Life Support and Personal Requirements which was collected in 11 bags, consisted of 60% alu- Table 1 presents the most recent estimates for the ECLSS minum food cans, 30% empty beverage pouches, 5% design parameters for Space Station Freedom (Anon., uneaten food and 5% paper, and amounted to about 33% 1990), showing nominal, daily inputs per person of oxy- by weight of the total trash. As for the solids content of the trash in the three shuttle flights mentioned, they were gen, food and various water supplies together with daily outputs of metabolic products and assorted waste waters. all quite similar: 72.7, 64.7 and 73.2 weight %, for This table also offers a direct comparison with the corre- STS-29, -30 and -35, respectively. No breakdown of the sponding waste stream production rates for a typical trash comparable to that reported for Space Shuttle crewed space habitat given previously (see table ! in each Flight 51D (see table 8 in Wydeven and Golub, 1990, or of the two papers by Wydeven and Golub, 1990, 1991). table 5 in Wydeven and Golub, 1991) was reported for Except for the absence of data on trash and on certain those three "STS" flights. toilet and hygiene solid wastes (e.g., toilet paper, A recent report issued in the UK (Oakley et al., 1989) for cleansing agents), the daily outputs indicated in the pre- the European Space Agency proposed categorizing sent table constitute an update of the waste streams given spacecraft wastes into a limited number of general classes, earlier. The ECLSS design parameters shown in table 1 based on the phase of the material and whether the mateassume that each occupant of a space habitat will require rial might be suitable for regeneration or recycling. The about 31 kg/day of supplies. Recently, Hightower (1990) categories and their overall production rates are as foldepicted an idealized P/C CLLS system in which there is lows: Biodegradable liquid waste (e.g., hygiene and 100% reclamation of air and water, but excluding recy- metabolic water, toilet and extravehicular activity, or cling of solid wastes and food, and which reduces the EVA, waste water), 24.51 kg/person-day; biodegradable daily input from 32 kg/day to 3.5 ks/day. These input val- solid waste (e.g., trash, hygiene and toilet solids), ues were based on Hightower's estimate for the following 0.3 i kg/person-day; non-biodegradable but reusable solid non-recyclable supplies (in kg/day): maintenance supplies waste (e.g., charcoal, lithium hydroxide cartridges, (1.3), plastic and paper supplies (0.7), moist food (1.0) clothing, towels), 1.19 kg/person-day; metabolic gaseous an d nitrogen (0.5). The special supply of nitrogen is waste (e.g., CO2, EVA CO2, CH4), 1.7 kg/person-day; needed to replace leakage of air to space, while the corre- and non-regenerable solid waste (e.g., food and medical sponding loss of oxygen (= 0.15 kg/day) is assumed to be containers, books, papers, pens, wipes), 0.4 kg/personrecoverable via electrolysis of excess water. day. Two other categories for which no information was As observed before, the principal contributor to solid available are non-regenerable liquid waste (e.g., products waste in the short-duration closed space environments from scientific experiments) and non-regenerable nonexamined to date, such as space shuttle flights, has been metabolic gases (volatiles from materials outgassing). The foregoing categories total 28.11 kg/person-day of waste, trash. By way of addition to the wet weight formation rates of trash given previously for Space Shuttle Flights which is not very different from the total of 31.0 STS-29 and -30 (I.49 and 1.62 kg/person-day, respec- kg/person-day indicated in table 1. tively), Shuttle Flight STS-35 (63 man-days versus 25 and 20 for STS-29 and STS-30, respectively) generated only Trace Contaminants in Space Shuttle Flights 1.14 kg/person-day (Grounds, 1990). This reduction in As a follow-up to the data on trace contaminant load weight formation rate was achieved in large measure by the replacement of polyethylene square beverage pack- models given in table I I of Wydeven and Golub (1990), table 2 of this report presents the results of a series of ages, used in STS-29 and STS-30, by Teflon-lined aluminum foil beverage pouches used in STS-35. A corre- analyses by the Toxicology Group at NASA Johnson Space Center of the cabin air taken during Space Shuttle sponding reduction in volume formation rate of trash was also observed for the latter flight: 0.24 ft 3 (-0.68 x 10-2 Flights STS-30 through STS-36. The aim of these analym 3) per person-day for STS-35 versus 0.49 and 0.47 ft 3 ses (involving gas chromatography and mass spectrome- (--!.39 and 1.33 x 10 -2 m 3) per person-day for STS'29 try) was to help determine the effectiveness of the contamination control measures designed to maintain a clean, and STS-30, respectively. The pouches were reported to reduce the volume of the beverage packages by 48%, and safe living environment during the space missions. In all cases, the detected contaminants were well below their their weight by 56% (Grounds 1990, private communicaspacecraft maximum allowable concentrations (SMAC). tion), as compared to the plastic square beverage pack- In one flight (STS-31), benzene was found at a typically ages. Flight STS-35 was notable also for having been the

Original page 7

highlevels in the inflight sample, although the In a review article on habitability and life support in a concentration (0.01 mg/m 3) was well below the 7-day space station, Nefedov and Adamovich (1988), drawing SMAC of 0.32 mg/m 3. Most of the substances listed in upon ground-based studies of small sealed environments, excretions listed the following major trace contaminants identified in table 2 are probably not derived from human but from materials used in the Shuttles. Methane is probably intestinal; acetone and 2-propanol may come has (0. I), acetone (0.35 + 0.30), methyl ethyl ketone part from human metabolism; and ethanol (alcohol) of water (0. ! 2 + 0.02), propionaldehyde (0.1), ethanol been used as a surface wipe to avoid formation droplets at zero G. Waste Stream Data from Soviet Literature human expired gas, with maximal amounts in mglm 3 in given in parentheses: acetaldehyde (0.1), formaldehyde (0.86 + 0.50), methanol (0.19 + 0.10), propanol (0. I ), isopropanol (0.1), formic, acetic, propionic, isovaleric and valeric acids (0.41 + 0.08), ammonia (0.51 + 0.07), dimethyl amine (0.1), methane (I.24 + 0.07), ethane (0.1), The rates of excretion into the air environment of a very ethylene (0.1), propane (0.1), hexane (0. I ) and carbon in various monoxide (nonsmokers, 4.9 + 1. I; smokers, 14.3 + 4.2). wide assortment of organic compounds present et al. The foregoing list of compounds and their concentrations human wastes were recently reported by Dmitryiev spec- can be regarded as supplementing the information given (1987) who employed a gas-chromatograph/mass analysis in column 3 of table 3. It was stated that Soviet scientists trometer and a computer library of spectra for the from set maximum acceptable levels of virtually all the above of complex mixtures. The waste products, obtained perspiration compounds as a function of space flight duration, but such the exhaled air, intestinal gas, urine, saliva, and feces excreted by 56 healthy individuals, provide given in but with few details, that a total of 200 synthetic materianother list of contaminants to complement those 1990) als, including many toxic sustances, have been identified table 11 of the prior report (Wydeven and Golub, envi- as products of polymer outgassing. The article also menand that may be expected to appear in the closed listed tioned the supplies needed to support a cosmonaut for ronment of a space habitat. Of the 136 compounds 3, and each day of normal human existence during spaceflight: by the Soviet workers, only 74 are given in table data were not given for Salyut or Mir. It was also stated, in the previously 800 g oxygen, 2500 g potable water and about 700 g food their ordering in that table follows that in comparison of (3000-3500 calories) - daily inputs that are very close to cited table of trace contaminants for ease some of the corresponding numbers given in column 2 of table I. the corresponding entries. It should be noted that the compounds in table 3 (e.g., the various halocarbons) presumably arose from non-human sources (as in outgassing of plastic materials). Apart from indicating the content of toxic metabolites, table 3 provides data concerning compounds that may be significant for biomedical evaluation of individuals subjected to the confined atmosphere of a spacecraft. The special merit of table 3 is that it offers metabolic rates for the bulk of compounds emanating from human waste for which such rates were stated as zero in the aforementioned table 1 I. Where non-zero metabolic rates were given for some of the co mp6un_is in the latter table, the metabolic rates from table 3 are similar to those in table ! I in a few instances but dissimilar in others. This is illustrated in table 4, where the metabolic rates for 9 compounds reported in the Soviet study (convened to mg/person-day by multiplying the total excretion in lag/h by 24 [h] and dividing by 56 [persons]) are compared with those given in table I !. Evidently, the new data on metabolic rates of different compounds should be factored into the trace contaminant load models for Space Station Freedom, although in all cases the data for overall generation rates of contaminants (for two different models) given in table 11 of the prior report do exceed the corresponding metabolic rates. Polyakov et al. (1986), in a study of the effective reclamation by reverse osmosis of wash water likely to be encountered in long-duration spaceflight, indicated that the total impurities in that water was about I g/l, the principal constituents being the detergents (a mixture of alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride, or Catamine AB, and alkyldimethyl-amine oxide, amounting to 174 mg/1). Although the nature of that hygiene water was not discussed, the weight percent solids (=0. 1%) was comparable to that (=0.08-0.15%) obtained for the combined laundry and shower/hand-wash water given in table 1 of each of the two papers by Wydeven and Golub, 1990, 1991). From an analysis of the wash water recovered from showering with detergents, Berlin and Chekanova (1987) concluded that the composition of the wash water was comparable for men and women, despite the fact that the latter were allowed cosmetics, perfumes, creams and deodorants. This indicated that the sex of crewmembers can be disregarded in the design of water reclamation systems for spacecraft. Nevertheless, women's wash water showed a higher chloride content than that for men: 39.14 vs. 20,54 mg/1, with standard deviations of 11.35 and 9.49 mg/I, respectively, for a group of essentially healthy men and women 25 to 50 years of age (12 each). Menstruation had only a slight

Original page 8

effect on the composition of wash water from females. It tion on the range in composition of some 65 substances was also noted that the composition of the wash water present in saliva, the reader may consult the comprehendepended on the health status of its users, in particular, sive survey by Webb (1964), which also contains more when the subjects had a cold or elevated blood pressure. complete compositional data on the other streams indicated in table 5, e.g., hair, nails and semen. Finally, that To conclude this survey of pertinent Soviet literature, we survey also lists the following composition in weight permention the work of Pak et al. (1989) who examined the cent of ear wax: total lipids (44), protein (24) and residue hygienic aspects of wash water reclamation systems. The (32). major parameters characterizing used shower water were bichromate oxidizability, electroconductivity and chloride ion concentration (as in the prior work of Berlin and Conclusions Chekanova 1987) plus pH. The total concentration of As a sequel to our prior NASA Technical Memorandum microorganisms in the wash water, without the use of detergents, was 104- 105 microbial bodies per ml, which and related journal article dealing with the generation concentration was reduced to 8 x 102- 6 x 103 microbial rates and chemical compositions of the major waste bodies per ml when detergents were used. Microbial streams in a typical crewed space habitat, this report provides comparable information on various minor human parameters for women were close to those of men. The most numerous microorganism was staphylococcus, while body wastes not discussed earlier, as well as a survey of other organisms found represented the natural microflora recent Soviet literature relative to waste stream definitions, and offers some new data uncovered since compleof human skin. This work confirmed the desirability of using detergents with disinfecting properties. However, tion of the previous report, including the ECLSS design parameters for Space Station Freedom. the concentrations of organic substances in the used wash water, as measured by oxidizab!lity, increased from - 120-310 mg O2/1, without the use of detergents, to References ---1350-1730 mg O2/I, with the useof detergents. At the same time, the concentrations of chlorides increased from Anon.: Environmental Control and Life Support System = 16-23 mg/I to =34-40 mg/l, the organic contaminants arising from surface dirt on the skin as well as products of secretion of sebaceous and sweat glands. Berlin, A. A.; and Chekanova, S. L.: Analysis of Water Minor Human Body Waste Streams Table 5 constitutes an addendum to the two tables I of Wydeven and Golub (1990, 1991) in presenting production rates and solid contents of the following minor waste Architectural Control Document. SSP 30262. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, 1990. Recovered after being Used for Washing by Men and Women. Kosmicheskaya Biologiya i Aviakosmicheskaya Medltsina, vol. 21, no. 5, pp_53-57, 1987. products generated by the human body: saliva, flatus, hair, Best, C. H.; and Taylor, N. B.: The Physiological Basis of finger- and toenails, dried skin, tears and semen. Details on these minor waste streams were omitted from the prior report partly for convenience but mainly because they were deemed inconsequential from the standpoint of their Dmitriyev, M. T.; Ma] ysheva, A. G.; and Rastyannikov, masses relative to those of the other waste streams discussed in that report. However, for purposes of completeness in updating that report and also because the minor body wastes might have an impact on the trace contaminant load or the waste management system, especially in Medical Practice, 7th Ed., The Williams & Wilkins Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 1961, p. 1314. Ye. G.: Specific Organic Compounds in Human Wastes. i_osmicheskaya Biologiya i Aviakosmicheskaya Meditsina, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 50-56, 1987. prolonged confinementir_ aspacecraft, such streams merit Evanich, P. L.: Advanced Physical-Chemical Life Support inclusion here. The chemical compositions of flatus, skin secretions and tears are shown in tables 6-8. Saliva, which is approxi- Systems Research. Paper 881010, 18th Intersociety Conference on Environmental Systems, San Francisco, California, 1988. mately 99.4% water, contains a wide assortment of elec- Grounds, P F.: Space Transportation System 35 (STS-35) trolytes, nitrogen compounds, enzymes, vitamins and miscellaneous organic compounds, all of which can contribute but very sma!l amounts tothe contaminant load, and then only if the saliva leaves the body. For informa- 4 Trash Evaluation, Final Report. JSC-SP-90-2. NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, 1990.

Original page 9

Hightower,M.:Benefitsof Recycling (Loop Closure) in a Polyakov, S. V.; Volgin, V. D.; Sinyak, Yu. Ye.; Space Habitat. In: Research and Technology 1990, NASA TM- 103850, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California. Lentner, C. (Ed.): Geigy Scientific Tables, Vol. !. Ciba- Geigy, Basle, 1981. MacElroy, R. D.; Tibbits, T. W.; Thompson, B. G.; and Volk, T. (Eds.): Life Sciences and Space Research XXIII (3), Advances in Space Research, vol. 9, no. 8, 1989. Nefedov, Yu. G.; and Adamovich, B. A.: Habitability and Life Support. Kosmicheskaya Biologiya i Aviakosmicheskaya Meditsina, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 23-29, 1988. Oakley, D. L.; Rosevear; A., Lambe, C. A.; and Chipaux, C.: Waste Processing. AERE G. 5046. Harwell Laboratory, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, 1989. Pak, Z.; Sytnikkova, N. N.; Berlin, A. A.; Koloskova, Yu. S.; Shirobokov, V0 P.; and Tyshko, A. G.: Hygienic Aspects of Wash Water Reclamation Systems. Kosmicheskaya Biologiya i Aviakosmicheskaya Meditsina, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 67-70, 1989. Maksimov, Ye. D.; and Novikov, V. I.: Reclamation of Water Used for Washing by Means of Reverse Osmosis During Long-term Spaceflights. Kosmicheskaya Biologiya i Aviakosmicheskaya Meditsina, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 78-80, 1986. Webb, P. (Ed.): Bioastronautics Data Book, NASA SP-3006, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, i 964. Wydeven, T.; and Golub, M. A.: Generation Rates and Chemical Compositions of Waste Streams in a Typical Crewed Space Habitat, NASA TM-102799, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, 1990. Wydeven, T.; and Golub, M. A.: Waste Streams in a Crewed Space Habitat. Waste Management & Research, vol. 9, pp. 91-101, 1991. Wydeven, T.; Tremor, J.; Koo, C.; and Jacquez, R.: Sources and Processing of CELSS Wastes. Advances in Space Research, vol. 9, pp. 85-97, 1989.

Original page 10

E (/3 U3 (J E 1: 0 ==_. _d 6

Original page 11

i 7

Original page 12

l__%%%% _ oo_%%%%%% i lxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _ × X × X X X X × X × X X X X X X X × X X X × X X X X X X X X X X X X I= q_____q___q E I= r.,- =L £££% £ % 2£££_ . x x X x x x _ _ .o _ x . -xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx X XX X _ _ X _ "X X X X oooo% _ ....... X X X_X X X X X 1 _ _ -,---,,,---,--,,,-,--- _ S_ { XXxXXX_ __ X _ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X _ i E 0 rd "E >.,. r_ ..d .<

Original page 13

0 ×××× ×× ×× ×x ×× ×x . _ r- X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 0 _ "N_d_4__d_MN--_ c.) 0 .i r- X _ --to% _ C) ee-

Original page 14

xXXXXXXX o _ E 8 ¢;i XXXXXXXX B [.-, .g = @ ¢, i0

Original page 15

Table 4. Comparison Compound Butanol Ethanol Methanol Ethanal (acetaldehyde) Pentanal Acetone Methane Indole Carbon monoxide of metabolic rates in two reports a Report Ib Report II c 1.33 4.17 4.00 5.41 1.50 1.15 0.09 2.73 0.83 0.42 0.20 5.71 160 112 25 1.02 x 10-.3 23 80 i aData are given in units of mg/person-day. bFrom table 11 in Wydeven and Golub (1990). cCalculated from data of Dmitryiev et al. (1987) as indicated in "total" column of table 3 of this report. Table 5. Production rates and solid contents for minor human body wastes Waste stream Wet weight formation rate, Weight percent solids, % g/person-da_, Saliva 500-1500 a 0.6 a Flatus (100-2800) b Hair 0.04-0.3c; 0.02-0.03 d 99.6c; 95.9 e Nails 0.010 f 88-99,93 f Skin 0.57-3.00g 30.6 h Tears 0.7-1.0 i 1.8i,j Semen (0.2-6.8) k 11.31 aFrom Lentner (1981), pp. 114-115. Daily production rate estimated at 500-1500 ml/day, and specific gravity essentially 1.00. bDischarged gas in ml/day for normal individuals on ordinary (cabbage-free) diet; single emissions are between 25 and 100 ml (Webb, 1964). CFrom Webb (1964). Various values cited for facial hair. dFrom Webb (1964). Various values cited for scalp, facial and body hair. eFrom Lentner (1981), p. 224. fDatum from Webb (1964) for fingernails; corresponding datum for toenails is estimated at 0.0025 g/day. Hygroscopic nature of keratin causes considerable variation in water content. gLoss of dried surface skin, from Webb (1964). For skin secretions (table 7), the weight percent solids is 68.3%. hFrom Lentner (1981), p. 224. iFrom Webb (1964). Estimate based on secretion rate of 0.031-0.041 g/h. JFrom Best and Taylor (1961), p. 1314. kWeight in g/ejaculate, after at least 3 days of abstinence (Lentner, 1981, p. 185). 1From Lentner (1981), pp. 185-186, given a water content of 918 g/l and a mean density of 1.035. !1

Original page 16

Table 6. Chemical composition of flatus a ii • r_l* | i i , . Substance Formula Cabbage-free diet, Cabbage- and milk-free 7mean_ % diet, mean r % Carbon dioxide CO 2 Oxygen 02 Methane CH4 9.0 9.7 3.9 5.5 7.2 3.1 Hydrogen H2 20.9 12.0 Nitrogen N 2 59.0 70.0 Hyd_rogen sulfide H2S aData from Webb (1964). Table 7. Major components Component Water Epithelial cells and protein Fat Butyric, valeric, and caproic acids Ash i 0.0003 0.0002 of skin secretions a Weight percent 31.7 61.75 4.16 1.21 |.i8 aFrom Webb (1964), which presents data on fatty acids in human skin lipids and on major alcohols of the waxes and sterol esters of human skin surface lipids. Table 8. Solids content of tears a Component Ash Total nitrogen Nonprotein N Urea Proteins (albumin and globulin) sfigfir Chlorides (as NaCi) Sodium (as Na20) Potassium (as K20) Ammonia i Percent 1.05 0.158 0.05 ! 0.03 0.669 0.65 0.658 0.60 0.14 0.005 aFrom Best and Taylor (1961 ). Total solids m tears is given as 1.8%. 12

Original page 17

Original page 18

Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMBNo.0704-0100 Public reporting burden for this collection of information iS estimated to average I hour per response, including the llme f0r revtewtng instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the oNlection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information Operations end Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlingtonl VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DO 20503. 1: AGENCY USE-ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE | 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES.COVERED February 1992 I 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Waste Streams in a Typical Crewed Space Habitat: An Update 6. AUTHOR(S) M. A. Golub and T. Wydeven 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546-0001 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Technical Memorandum 5. FUNDING NUMBERS 591-34-31 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER A-91224 10_ SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NASA TM- 103888 Point of Contact: M. A. Golub, Ames Research Center, MS 239-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 (415) 604-3200 or ETS 464-3200 12a, DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Unclassified-Unlimited Subject Category - 54 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE A compilation of generation rates and chemJca] compositions of potential waste streams in a typical crewed space habitat, reported in a prior NAS ATechnical Memorandum and a related journal article, has been updated. This report augments that compilation by the inclusion of the following new data: those data uncovered since completion of the prior report; those obtained from Soviet literature relevant to life support issues; and those for various minor human body wastes not presented previously (saliva, flatus, hah; fingerand toenails, dried skin and skin secretions, tears, and semen), but included here for purposes of completeness. These waste streams complement those discussed previously: (laundry, shower/handwash, dishwasher water and cleansing toilet waste (urine, feces, etc.), hygiene water agents), trash, humidity condensate, perspiration and respiration water, trace contaminants, and dust generation. This report also reproduces the latest information on the environmental control and life support Freedom. 14. SUBJECT TERMS system design parameters for Space Station 15. NUMBER OF P,_GES Waste streams, Crewed space habitat, Environmental control design 14 parameters, Trace contaminants, Human body wastes, space missions, NASA 17. SECURITY CL,_SSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION ' 19. OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE Unclassified Unclassified _l¢;IkJ 7RzlO-01-2t_0-5500 16. PRICE CODE Long-duration A02 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20, LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF ABSTRACT Standard Form 298 (Ray. 2-89)