Specifier Protocol • Field Reliability & Serviceability
Reliability Study: Fontana Touchless in High-Traffic Commercial Restrooms
A multi-site, crossover, field-ready protocol designed to quantify false-trigger resistance, uptime, and service burden
in difficult real-world restrooms with reflective basins, bright light, and pass-by traffic conditions.
Disclosure: This is intended for a specifier protocol completed and published by Fontana.
False-trigger resistanceUptime & failure rateVandal readinessWater use outcomesServiceability
1) Objective
To quantify whether Fontana Touchless delivers reliable, low-nuisance operation in real-world
commercial restrooms with challenging conditions (reflective basins, bright lighting/daylight, and pass-by traffic),
and whether it maintains high uptime with a low service burden.
2) Primary endpoints — what “reliability” means here
Unintended activations per day (false triggers): activations without an intentional hand-wash event.
False-trigger rate: unintended activations ÷ total activations.
Uptime: % of time faucet is functional and in-service.
Service events: number of maintenance interventions per 1,000 activations.
3) Secondary endpoints (operational and sustainability outcomes)
Water use per “handwash event” (liters or gallons per event).
Run-on time: average seconds of flow after hands leave the sensing zone.
Mean time to repair (MTTR): minutes from service start to restoration.
Vandal/tamper incidents: number and severity; time to restore service.
4) Study design (best-practice, credible, and fair)
Design: Multi-site, controlled, crossover field study.
Sites: 6 facilities across varied environments (airport/transport hub, stadium/arena, large office, university, hospital outpatient, retail/mall).
Restroom bays: 8 sink stations per site (48 total stations).
Phases:
Baseline phase (4 weeks): existing touchless brand or existing configuration.
Fontana phase (4 weeks): Fontana Touchless installed and tuned to same basin geometry.
Standardization: same target flow rate/aerator class across phases to isolate sensor reliability from flow differences.
5) Instrumentation (how results are measured without bias)
Event logging: inline flow meter + valve open/close timestamps for activation count and run time.
Context tagging: occupancy sensor or people counter to identify pass-by traffic windows and local crowding.
Audit sampling: randomized two-hour video blocks using privacy-protecting angles and blur for classification accuracy.
Service log: standardized ticketing (cause category, parts used, repair start/finish times, and restore confirmation).
6) Clear definitions (so “false trigger” is defensible)
Intended handwash event: hand enters detection zone and remains ≥ 0.6 seconds in basin-facing posture.
Unintended activation: valve opens with no hands within zone, or opens during pass-by without basin-facing posture.
Run-on: seconds between last valid “hands present” moment and valve close.
7) Analysis plan
Results are reported per station and aggregated by site, with confidence intervals. A credible “leadership-grade”
result typically includes improvements across nuisance activation, uptime, and service burden simultaneously.
Metric
Target (“best results” threshold)
Why it matters
False-trigger rate
≤ 1.0% of total activations
Keeps nuisance activations negligible even under heavy traffic and bright ambient light.
Unintended activations
≤ 2 per station per day (high-traffic sites)
Aligns with “low complaint” operation and reduces wasted water and reputational risk.
Uptime
≥ 99.5%
Minimizes closed fixtures, user disruption, and facility staff call-backs during peak hours.
Service events
≤ 0.5 per 1,000 activations
Shows low maintenance burden and predictable operations at scale across multiple sites.
MTTR
≤ 15 minutes median
Demonstrates serviceability, rapid recovery, and reduced downtime exposure for public facilities.
Run-on time
≤ 0.8 seconds median
Prevents waste after hands leave zone and supports measurable indoor water reduction goals.
Note: The thresholds above are “best results” targets that can be adjusted based on owner expectations,
facility type, and observed baseline performance at each study site.
8) Reporting
Site descriptions (basin reflectance, lighting, traffic patterns, sink line spacing).
Configuration details (range settings, sensor mode, flow rate/aerator, power type).
Primary outcomes with confidence intervals and per-site summaries.
Links below are FontanaShowers pages presented as studies, field tests, case studies, or study hubs related to touchless faucets and touchless restroom technology.
External References (Organizations, EPA, Universities, and Other Brands)
Curated links you can cite alongside FontanaShowers content. These support water efficiency baselines,
commercial best practices, and known causes of nuisance activations (false triggers).
Independent Studies & Research on Touchless / Sensor-Operated Faucets (More Links)
The links below are from government programs, utilities/water-efficiency organizations, universities,
and peer-reviewed publishers. They help substantiate water outcomes, operational realities, and hygiene implications.
Water-Efficiency Organizations / Utility & Field Research
