Waste Services — Germany

Why we anonymise

Customer confidentiality is part of our professional standard.

We value the confidentiality of our customers, partners and data owners. Publicly presented test cases are therefore anonymised and do not disclose vehicle identities, vessel names, fleet details or commercially sensitive operating data unless explicit public disclosure has been agreed.

Our principle

Proof should come from validation, not from borrowed credibility.

Our technology should be judged by a transparent test approach and by each customer’s ability to verify NanoEFX under their own operating conditions — not by a wall of past customer logos.

Known limitations

• There is no control group. Untreated sister vehicles running the same routes over the same weeks would separate the treatment effect from the season and from the load shift in one step — this is the single biggest improvement available for this trial.
• The vehicles ran lighter during the trial. Average capacity utilisation across the fleet fell from 0.87 to 0.79 — down 8.7% — and distance per driving day fell 6.6%. A lighter refuse truck burns less fuel per 100 km regardless of any treatment, so some unknown part of the 17.7% is a load effect rather than a product effect. This is the most important caveat on this page, and we would not know about it if Waste Services had sent only the fuel figures.
• Against that: the load shift does not track the result. The change in utilisation and the saving across the five vehicles correlate at +0.01 — effectively none — and Vehicle 04 carried 7.0% more utilisation while using 15.3% less fuel. Within the same vehicle, daily load and daily consumption showed no detectable relationship (+0.02 l/100 km per tonne, t = 0.8, 249 vehicle-days). That is the absence of a detectable effect, not proof that there is none: the unit weights behind the load figures are assumptions, and with five vehicles this is an argument, not a proof.
• The baseline is seasonal. March–May, at 10.5 °C, is compared with a window that averaged 18.9 °C, and summer diesel, fewer cold starts, no cabin heating and drier roads all reduce consumption on their own. The temperature response measured on the vehicles’ own baseline months is weak, so the seasonal share could be smaller or larger than the roughly 4 percentage points it implies.
• Route continuity fell over the summer. 83% of the July journeys went to baseline destinations, but only 71% across July to September, and as little as 40% for one vehicle (Vehicle 02). A changed round can change consumption in either direction; we have not separated that effect.
• The distance records are incomplete. On 47 working days between 12 June and 30 September a vehicle moved units and logged hours, but no usable kilometre reading was recorded — 19 read “no data”, 9 are unclear and 19 read 0. Roughly 9,000 km, about 17% of the distance covered, is missing, and one 248 km tour is dated to a day that does not exist. This is why distance does not enter the headline figure; litres per 100 km are recorded for every vehicle-day used.
• Vehicles dropped out. Vehicle 02 left the trial — last reading 21 August, lease ended 1 September — so the fleet average rests on at most four vehicles from week 11. Vehicle 01 was out of service in weeks 6 and 7 (an entry “water in oil” is recorded on 21 July) and again around 24 August; Vehicle 03 was in the workshop on five days in early September.
• Planned services fall inside the trial. The vehicle records list service intervals, and for four of the five vehicles a planned service is due within the trial window — Vehicle 04 in July, Vehicles 01, 02 and 03 in September. According to the operator, the air filters were not replaced, cleaned or treated again: the mileage did not yet require it, and an inspection found them clean enough.
• Traffic, driver rotation and vehicle maintenance status were not systematically controlled during this proof-of-concept phase.
• The spread between vehicles is wide — from 7.4% to 32.5%, and 14.0% on average without the strongest vehicle. Route changes do not explain it: Vehicle 03, the −32.5% vehicle, has the highest route continuity of all five at 75%. It remains an outlier to be explained rather than a headline.
• The data are documented — daily consumption data, daily operational records and the operator’s fleet-management system. The trial report itself calls them proof-of-concept data and names a controlled validation trial with a defined protocol and a control group as the next step towards certified documentation. The trial is still running; October follows once its operational records are available.