Odour Sampling Methods for Point, Area, Fugitive, and Ambient Sources

Bokowa, Anna H.

doi:10.2175/193864708788808041

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a response is more appropriately identifi ed as the RT, which is typically about half of the DT level in laboratory olfactometry. Th is would account for much of the discrepancy between lab and fi eld olfactometry thresholds noted by Bokowa (2008), but alone cannot explain the magnitude of diff erence in our work, which is more similar to the fi ndings of Newby and McGinley (2004).…”

Section: Comparison Of Field Vs Laboratory-based Olfactometry Resultscontrasting

confidence: 49%

“…Factors cited by Bokowa (2008) likely played a minor role in our study. All NRO assessors wore carbon‐filter respirators when in the vicinity of manure emissions and switched to NRO units without breathing unfiltered air.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…Newby and McGinley (2004) likewise found laboratory TFC odor panel levels to be much higher than fi eld olfactometry readings and concluded that a laboratory DT of 110 was approximately equivalent to a fi eld olfactometry D/T level of 7:1. Th ough diff erences were not as pronounced, Bokowa (2008) reported that the NRO device gives signifi cantly (2× to 3×) lower odor detection threshold values than ambient air sampling with laboratory assessment. Bokowa (2008) attributes the discrepancy to three factors: (i) inadequate removal of selected odorants (e.g., sulfur compounds, dimethylamine, trimethylamine) by (CEN, 2003).…”

Section: Comparison Of Field Vs Laboratory-based Olfactometry Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Th ough diff erences were not as pronounced, Bokowa (2008) reported that the NRO device gives signifi cantly (2× to 3×) lower odor detection threshold values than ambient air sampling with laboratory assessment. Bokowa (2008) attributes the discrepancy to three factors: (i) inadequate removal of selected odorants (e.g., sulfur compounds, dimethylamine, trimethylamine) by (CEN, 2003). ‡ Log DT and log RT standard deviation values followed by the same letter are not signifi cantly diff erent (α = 0.05).…”

Section: Comparison Of Field Vs Laboratory-based Olfactometry Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Based on assessor feedback, the respirator and NRO unit filter cartridges effectively removed odorants below detection. Because we used multiple assessors, Bokowa's (2008) single‐observer rationale is inapplicable. Detailed statistical analysis of the NRO field data collected throughout the experiment revealed no trends in reported D/T levels that would suggest desensitization of odor assessors.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Field Olfactometry Assessment of Dairy Manure Land Application Methods

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surface application of manure in reduced tillage systems generates nuisance odors, but their management is hindered by a lack of standardized field quantification methods. An investigation was undertaken to evaluate odor emissions associated with various technologies that incorporate manure with minimal soil disturbance. Dairy manure slurry was applied by five methods in a 3.5-m swath to grassland in 61-m-inside-diameter rings. Nasal Ranger Field Olfactometer (NRO) instruments were used to collect dilutions-to-threshold (D/T) observations from the center of each ring using a panel of four odor assessors taking four readings each over a 10-min period. The Best Estimate Threshold D/T (BET10) was calculated for each application method and an untreated control based on preapplication and <1 h, 2 to 4 h, and approximately 24 h after spreading. Whole-air samples were simultaneously collected for laboratory dynamic olfactometer evaluation using the triangular forced-choice (TFC) method. The BET10 of NRO data composited for all measurement times showed D/T decreased in the following order (a = 0.05): surface broadcast > aeration infiltration > surface + chisel incorporation > direct ground injection Sshallow disk injection > control, which closely followed laboratory TFC odor panel results (r = 0.83). At 24 h, odor reduction benefits relative to broadcasting persisted for all methods except aeration infiltration, and odors associated with direct ground injection were not different from the untreated control. Shallow disk injection provided substantial odor reduction with familiar toolbar equipment that is well adapted to regional soil conditions and conservation tillage operations.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Field Vs Laboratory-based Olfactometry Resultscontrasting

confidence: 49%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 76%