Field Olfactometry Odor Measurement R.C. Brandt, PhD, PE Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering The Pennsylvania State University Penn State Odor Assessment Laboratory UMES Odor Assessment Kick-off Training August 16 – 18, 2011 University Park, PA
Field Olfactometry Odor Measurement. Penn State Odor Assessment Laboratory UMES Odor Assessment Kick-off Training August 16 – 18, 2011 University Park, PA. R.C. Brandt, PhD, PE Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering The Pennsylvania State University. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Field Olfactometry Odor Measurement
R.C. Brandt, PhD, PEDepartment of Agricultural and Biological EngineeringThe Pennsylvania State University
Penn State Odor Assessment LaboratoryUMES Odor Assessment Kick-off TrainingAugust 16 – 18, 2011University Park, PA
How are Odor Samples Secured for Laboratory Olfactometry?
Field Olfactometer
How is Odor Threshold ConcentrationMeasured in Ambient Air?
Is Field Olfactometry a New Idea?
Scentometer® • Research sponsored by the U.S. Public Health Service, 1958
• Originally manufactured by Barnebey-Cheney Corp, early 1960’s
• Now manufactured & sold by Barnebey and Sutcliff Corp.
Photo image by St. Croix Sensory, Inc.
Dilution of Odor in Ambient Air
Odor Source
Ambient Air Observer
Air Flow
D/T 2 7 304 15 60Dilution-to-Threshold using Field Olfactometry
Nuisance?
Original Scentometer D/T Interpretation
D/T Word Category2 Noticeable
7 Objectionable
15 Nuisance
31 Nauseating
How Are Odor Panelists Selected?
Smell Bell of Normal PopulationPe
rcen
tage
of P
opul
atio
n
8Anosmic Hypersensitive
<= =>
3 137654
5 % tile
9 10
5 % tile
11 12
Chart image by St. Croix Sensory, Inc.
Normal Population
Smell Bell
Pen-Test Sensitivity History
Odor Sensitivity Testing Results-Test Subject 560
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
a b a b a b a b a b
1 2 3 4 5
5/14/06 5/15/06 5/25/06 5/31/06 7/9/06
Odor Sensitivity Test Event
Pen
Test
Res
ult
Mean = 11.5 One Std. Deviation = 3.84 One Std. Error =1.21
Mean = 9.85 One Std. Deviation = 3.03 One Std. Error =0.677
Why Field Olfactometry?Advantages: On-site “REAL-TIME” measurement No need for sample collection Lower detection levels possible Relatively low costDisadvantages: Does not provide emission rate Variable field conditions Personnel logistics
Multiple Assessor Repeat Observation Field Olfactometry Protocol
200 foot diameter manure ring
Prevailing WindDirection
Use of Manure Rings for Assessment of Dairy Odors from Alternative Application Methods
10 foot wide swath of manure (6000 gal/acre)
OdorPanel Advantages:
1.Eliminates wind direction as a primary source of variance
2.Maintains constant odor assessor distance from odor source
Surface Aeration Infiltration
Surface + Chisel
Shallow
Disk
DGI Control0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
a
b
c d de
Pre-application <1.0 hr 2 to 4 hrs 24 hrs
Land Application Method
Fiel
d O
lfact
omet
ry D
/T (B
ET10
)
Shallow Disk
Direct Ground In-
jection
Field Olfactometry D/T versus Time
0 hn = 96
1 hn = 95
2-4 hn = 95
24 hn = 96
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
C
A
BB
Field NRO Observation Time Following Manure Application
Ave
rage
NR
O D
/T (
Log
BET1
0) Error bars represent one standard error.
Data with same character are not significantly different (a=0.05)
Use of Inventory Management to Mitigate Odor Emissions From Land-Applied Biosolids
0
5
10
15
20
25
3-Day 10-Day 50-Day No Biosolids
Fiel
d O
lfact
omet
er B
ET10
Treatment/ Biosolids Age
Hannum Farm Odor Study - Field Olfactometer Best Estimate Odor Threshold
Pre-Application <1 hr 4 hrs 10 hrs Next Morning
BB
A
C
Same letter indicates no statistical difference ..... composited over time (α=0.05).
y = 12.20x + 2.07R² = 0.75
0
5
10
15
20
25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4Supr
a-T
hesh
old
Inte
nsity
(100
-pt.
scal
e)
LogBET10
Supra-Threshold Odor Intensity vs LogBET10
r=0.87
Sensory Comparisons -Odor Intensity versus Log BET10
y = -2.23x + 0.31R² = 0.79
-4.0
-3.0
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Hed
onic
Ton
e (2
2-p
t. sc
ale) LogBET10
Hedonic Tone vs LogBET10
r=0.89
Sensory Comparisons -Hedonic Tone versus Log BET10