The selection of an odour sampling device may influence the composition of the resulting odour sample. Limited comparison of emission rates derived from turbulent and essentially quiescent sampling devices confirms that the emission rates derived from these devices are quite different. There is therefore compelling evidence that current odour sampling practice should have greater regard for fundamental physical and chemical principles, the nature of the odour source and the conditions created by the sampling device. Such consideration may identify the most appropriate situations under which the use of these devices may or may not be correct.

Sampling devices differing greatly in shape, size and operating condition have been used to collect air samples to determine rates of emission of volatile substances, including odour. However, physical chemistry principles, in particular the partitioning of volatile substances between two phases as explained by Henrys Law and the relationship between wind velocity and emission rate, suggests that different devices cannot be expected to provide equivalent emission rate estimates. Thus several problems are associated with the use of static and dynamic emission chambers, but the more turbulent devices such as wind tunnels do not appear to be subject to these problems. In general, the ability to relate emission rate estimates obtained from wind tunnel measurements to those derived from device-independent techniques supports the use of wind tunnels to determine emission rates that can be used as input data for dispersion models.

No abstract

Two commonly used sampling devices (a wind tunnel and the US EPA dynamic emission chamber), were used to collect paired samples of odorous air from a number of agricultural odour sources. The odour samples were assessed using triangular, forced-choice dynamic olfactometry. The odour concentration data was combined with the flushing rate data to calculate odour emission rates for both devices on all sources. Odour concentrations were consistently higher in samples collected with a flux chamber (ratio ranging from 10:7 to 5:1, relative to wind tunnel samples), whereas odour emission rates were consistently larger when derived from wind tunnels (ratio ranging from 60:1 to 240:1, relative to flux chamber values). A complex relationship existed between emission rate estimates derived from each device, apparently influenced by the nature of the emitting surface. These results have great significance for users of odour dispersion models, for which an odour emission rate is a key input parameter.

No abstract