Do odour impact criteria of different jurisdictions ensure analogous separation distances for an equivalent level of protection?

Brancher, Marlon; Piringer, Martin; Grauer, Andreas F.; Schauberger, Günther

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.102

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An example of a risk assessment study on human exposure to H 2 S concentrations near two wastewater treatment plants in Curitiba, Brazil, that has considered different groups, can be found elsewhere (Godoi et al 2018 ). Overall, the contour lines show a similar shape as the wind rose, which indicates that the nature of health-related exposure is intimately connected to the meteorology of a particular site (Brancher et al ( 2019 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Determination of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from a commercial dairy farm with an exercise yard and the health-related impact for residents

Yang

Brancher

et al. 2020

Environ Sci Pollut Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Airborne emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) have the potential to pose a risk to human health and the environment. Here, we present an assessment of the emission, dispersion, and health-related impact of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emitted from a 300-head, full-scale dairy farm with an exercise yard in Beijing, China. By monitoring the referred gas emissions with a dynamic flux chamber for seven consecutive days, we examined their emission rates. An annual hourly emission time series was constructed on the basis of the measured emission rates and a release modification model. The health risk of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions around the dairy farm was then determined using atmospheric dispersion modeling and exposure risk assessment. The body mass-related mean emission factors of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide were 2.13 kg a−1 AU−1 and 24.9 g a−1 AU−1, respectively (one animal unit (AU) is equivalent to 500 kg body mass). A log-normal distribution fitted well to ammonia emission rates. Contour lines of predicted hourly mean concentrations of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide were mainly driven by the meteorological conditions. The concentrations of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide at the fence line were below 10 μg m−3 and 0.04 μg m−3, respectively, and were 2–3 orders of magnitude lower than the current Chinese air quality standards for such pollutants. Moreover, the cumulative non-carcinogenic risks (HI) of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide were 4 orders of magnitudes lower than the acceptable risk levels (HI = 1). Considering a health risk criterion of 1E-4, the maximum distance from the farm fence line to meet this criterion was nearly 1000 m towards north-northeast. The encompassed area of the contour lines of the ambient concentration of ammonia is much larger than that of hydrogen sulfide. However, the contour lines of the ammonia health risk are analogous to those of hydrogen sulfide. In general, the ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from the dairy farm are unlikely to cause any health risks for the population living in the neighborhood.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Determination of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from a commercial dairy farm with an exercise yard and the health-related impact for residents

Yang

Brancher

et al. 2020

Environ Sci Pollut Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Concerning the OIC, the levels of protection are respected through three different approaches: adjust the odour concentration threshold (C T ), adjust the exceedance probability of this threshold (p T ) and introduce correction factors related to the hedonic tone of the emissions [11,25]. In some countries, C T is assumed as a constant value, whereas p T is varied depending on location and emission offensiveness.…”

Section: Odour Impact Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The separation distance is intended to encompass the area within which odour annoyance can be expected, relying on a certain level of protection [10]. The definition of separation distances can be regarded as a practical approach for decision-making on odour pollution because it easily communicates for all stakeholders the area within which odour annoyance can be expected [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Separation Distances under Varying Odour Emission Rates and Meteorology: A WWTP Case Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A wide variability of odour impact criteria is found around the world. The objective of this research work was to evaluate the influence of the uncertainties related to some individual stages of odour impact assessment in the application of regulatory criteria. The evaluation procedure was established by following the guidelines of the Northern Italian regions. A wastewater treatment plant located in Northern Italy was considered as a case study. Odour dispersion modelling was carried out with the CALPUFF model. The study focused on two phases of the assessment. The first phase was the selection of the meteorology datasets. For low odour concentration thresholds (CT = 1 OU m−3), the results showed that two different years (2018 and 2019) provided similar patterns of the separation distances. The difference between the two years tended to increase by increasing the value of the concentration threshold (CT = 3 OU m−3 and CT = 5 OU m−3). The second phase of the assessment was the selection of the open field correction method for wind velocity used in the calculation of odour emission rates (OERs). Three different relationships were considered: the power law, the logarithmic law and the Deaves–Harris (D–H) law. The results showed that OERs and separation distances varied depending on the selected method. Taking the power law as the reference, the average variability of the separation distances was between −7% (D–H law) and +10% (logarithmic law). Higher variability (up to 25%) was found for single transport distances. The present study provides knowledge towards a better alignment of the concept of the odour impact criteria.

show abstract

“…This is due to their ability to simulate odour dispersion from the emission sources into the atmosphere, and to calculate ambient odour concentration values in the simulation space-time domain. In some cases, odour regulations specify a minimum distance between the closest inhabited area and the location of possible odour-producing industrial or agricultural facilities (Brancher et al, 2019;Capelli et al, 2013). Minimum distances are typically calculated by applying dispersion models or using simplified mathematical formulas with specific coefficients derived from dispersion modelling (Schauberger et al, 2012a(Schauberger et al, , 2012b.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is particularly complex due to the difficulty of measuring odours in the environment (Capelli et al, 2013(Capelli et al, , 2018. Another important aspect is the uncertainty associated with dispersion models when applied to odour impact assessment studies (Brancher et al, 2019;Oettl et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Modelling Choices on the Results of Landfill Odour Dispersion

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landfills are an important source of odour pollution, potentially causing nuisance to adjacent populations. The most commonly used odour impact assessment for this type of plants usually involves a combination of dynamic olfactometry with dispersion modelling. Despite the advantages associated with the use of dispersion models, there are still some important issues related to their uncertainty. The dispersion model requires the Odour Emission Rate (OER) as input, expressed as units of odour emitted per unit time. Source term characterization and the estimation of the OER are typically the most important steps in the model’s implementation, accounting for the highest contribution to the overall uncertainty. Another important element of uncertainty when modelling emissions from landfill surfaces is the geometrical implementation of the emission source in the dispersion model. This entails the definition of the initial dimensions of the emission, which is critical in the case of large area sources. This paper discusses issues related to uncertainty in the use of dispersion models for the evaluation of landfill odour impacts, particularly focusing on the estimation of the OER and the emission’s initial vertical dimension. This study shows that modelling choices may lead to a variance in the resulting modelled odour concentrations at receptors differing by up to a factor 3. This variability should not cause distrust in the method, but rather indicates the importance of having odour dispersion modelling studies carried out by experts with deep knowledge of the physical-chemical mechanisms underlying atmospheric emissions.

show abstract

Do odour impact criteria of different jurisdictions ensure analogous separation distances for an equivalent level of protection?

Cited by 15 publications

References 51 publications

Determination of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from a commercial dairy farm with an exercise yard and the health-related impact for residents

Determination of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from a commercial dairy farm with an exercise yard and the health-related impact for residents

Analysis of Separation Distances under Varying Odour Emission Rates and Meteorology: A WWTP Case Study

Influence of Modelling Choices on the Results of Landfill Odour Dispersion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About