Odor and Odorous Chemical Emissions from Animal Buildings: Part 2- Odor Emissions

Akdeniz, Neslihan; Jacobson, Larry D.; Hetchler, Brian P.; Bereznicki, Sarah D.; Heber, Albert J.; Jacko, Robert B.; Heathcote, Katherine Y.; Hoff, Steven J.; Kozieł, Jacek A.; Cai, Ling; Zhang, Shicheng; Parker, David B.; Caraway, Edward A.

doi:10.13031/2013.32639

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The analysis showed that both the h and k values suggested the IN5B barn 1 (ISU analysis) sample evaluation be investigated for sampling or assessment inconsistencies. This may indicate an outlying point or that panelists at ISU responded to barn odors from the IN5B site in an abnormal manner (a concept potentially supported by the lab × sample location interaction reported by Akdeniz, 2010). However, the collection and analysis documentation related to this sample did not indicate obvious discontinuity from other samples and analyses, and hence the data point was retained.…”

Section: Interlaboratory Olfactometry Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Both inter-and intralaboratory comparisons were made using standard comparative methods (ASTM, 2009). Additional olfactometry results for the normal sampling schedule can be found in the second article in this series (Akdeniz et al, 2012a).…”

Section: Interlaboratory Olfactometry Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The specific goals for part 1 of this six-article series are to present (1) the sample collection and analysis methods used by the olfactometry and chemical-olfactometry facilities, (2) the interlaboratory comparisons of testing protocols, and (3) a review of quality assurance and control measures. Part 2 focuses on the odor emissions as measured using triangular forced-choice olfactometry (Akdeniz et al, 2012a). Part 3 discusses the volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations and emissions as measured by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry with olfactometry (GC-MS-O) (Cai et al, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Odor and Odorous Chemical Emissions from Animal Buildings: Part 1. Project Overview, Collection Methods, and Quality Control

Bereznicki¹,

Heber²,

Akdeniz

et al. 2012

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Livestock facilities have historically generated public concerns due to their emissions of odorous air and various chemical pollutants. Odor emission factors and identification of principal odorous chemicals are needed to better understand the problem. Applications of odor emission factors include inputs to odor setback models, while chemical emission factors may be compared with regulation thresholds as a means of demonstrating potential health impacts. A companion study of the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS) included measurements necessary for establishing odor and chemical emission factors for confined animal feeding operations. This additional investigation was conducted by the

show abstract

Section: Interlaboratory Olfactometry Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Interlaboratory Olfactometry Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Odor and Odorous Chemical Emissions from Animal Buildings: Part 1. Project Overview, Collection Methods, and Quality Control

Bereznicki¹,

Heber²,

Akdeniz

et al. 2012

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…OAV has also been called odor value, odor unit, flavor unit, and aroma value in various publications, although the definition is the same for each term. To avoid confusion, note that this is not the same "odor unit" used by Akdeniz et al (2012a) in part 2 of this series to quantify odor concentration using dynamic triangular forced-choice olfactometry.…”

Section: Odor Activity Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In part 1, the overall project overview and collection methods are presented (Bereznicki et al, 2012). Part 2 focuses on odor emissions as measured using dynamic triangular forced-choice olfactometry with human panelists (Akdeniz et al, 2012a). In part 3, we present emission rates for chemical compounds (volatile organic compounds, VOC) as measured by GC/MS .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Odor and Odorous Chemical Emissions from Animal Buildings: Part 6. Odor Activity Value

Parker¹,

Kozieł²,

Cai³

et al. 2012

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a growing concern with air and odor emissions from agricultural facilities. A supplementary research project was conducted to complement the U.S. National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS). The overall goal of the project was to establish odor and chemical emission factors for animal feeding operations. The study was conducted over a 17-month period at two freestall dairies, one swine sow farm, and one swine finisher facility. Samples from a representative exhaust airstream at each barn were collected in 10 L Tedlar bags and analyzed by trained human panelists using dynamic triangular forced-choice olfactometry. Samples were simultaneously analyzed for 20 odorous compounds (acetic acid, propanoic acid, butyric acid, isobutyric acid, valeric acid, isovaleric acid, hexanoic acid, heptanoic acid, guaiacol, phenol, 4-methylphenol, 4-ethylphenol, 2-aminoacetophenone, indole, skatole, dimethyl disulfide, diethyl disulfide, dimethyl trisulfide, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia). In this article, which is part 6 of a six-part series summarizing results of the project, we investigate the correlations between odor concentrations and odor activity value (OAV), defined as the concentration of a single compound divided by the odor threshold for that compound. The specific objectives were to determine which compounds contributed most to the overall odor emanating from swine and dairy buildings, and develop equations for predicting odor concentration based on compound OAVs. Single-compound odor thresholds (SCOT) were statistically summarized and analyzed, and OAVs were calculated for all compounds. Odor concentrations were regressed against OAV values using multivariate regression techniques. Both swine sites had four common compounds with the highest OAVs (ranked high to low: hydrogen sulfide, 4-methylphenol, butyric acid, isovaleric acid). The dairy sites had these same four compounds in common in the top five, and in addition diethyl disulfide was ranked second at one dairy site, while ammonia was ranked third at the other dairy site. Summed OAVs were not a good predictor of odor concentration (R2 = 0.16 to 0.52), underestimating actual odor concentrations by 2 to 3 times. Based on the OAV and regression analyses, we conclude that hydrogen sulfide, 4-methylphenol, isovaleric acid, ammonia, and diethyl disulfide are the most likely contributors to swine odor, while hydrogen sulfide, 4-methyl phenol, butyric acid, and isovaleric acid are the most likely contributors to dairy odors.

show abstract

Empirical model of odor emission from deep-pit swine finishing barns to derive a standardized odor emission factor

Schauberger

Lim

et al. 2013

Atmospheric Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Odor and Odorous Chemical Emissions from Animal Buildings: Part 2- Odor Emissions

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Odor and Odorous Chemical Emissions from Animal Buildings: Part 1. Project Overview, Collection Methods, and Quality Control

Odor and Odorous Chemical Emissions from Animal Buildings: Part 1. Project Overview, Collection Methods, and Quality Control

Odor and Odorous Chemical Emissions from Animal Buildings: Part 6. Odor Activity Value

Empirical model of odor emission from deep-pit swine finishing barns to derive a standardized odor emission factor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About