Improving environmental odor measurements : comparison of lab-based standard method and portable odor measurement technology

• Autorzy: Maurer D. L. , Bragdon A. M. , Short B. C. , Ahn H. , Koziel J. A.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/119699

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Current standard odor measurement methods are lab-based and require substantial investment in hardware, sample collection, training, and maintenance. Odor samples must be collected in the field using bags and brought to the lab to test. This can be a time-consuming process, with the possibility of the sample loss. The actual odor measurements are based on dilution olfactometry, embodied in the AC’SCENT® International Olfactometer, following the ASTM E679-04 standard. In recent years a portable olfactometer, the Scentroid SM100i, has been developed for odor measurements. The portable olfactometer has many advantages over lab-based standard method, especially the lower cost-per-sample. However, very little is known about the performance and reliability of portable olfactometer where the dilutions are controlled with orifices in metallic plates. It is important to evaluate the Scentroid SM100i accuracy to determine the usefulness of using it as a comparable technology for odor measurements. The main objective of this research is to compare the performance of the lab-based ASTM E679-04 method with portable odor measurement technology. Specific objectives include: (1) determining the accuracy of the dilution ratios specified by the manufacturer of both the AC’SCENT International Olfactometer and the Scentroid SM100i; (2) comparing results between olfactometers using n-butanol, a commonly used standard gas in the olfactometry field, and (3) determining the accuracy of odor measurement using real odor samples collected from livestock farms in Iowa. The AC’SCENT olfactometer had an average percent error between the factory specifications and measured dilution ratios of 5.23% compared with 14.1% for Scentroid SM100i (using plate i-2 with dilution range most comparable to the AC’SCENT olfactometer). The use of other dilution plates resulted in average percent errors ranging from 9.68% to 25.31%. The Scentroid SM100i deviated from the manufacturer specifications for flowrates and dilution ratios, but these flowrates were generally consistent with each dilution setting. Overall, the Scentroid SM100i overestimated the odor concentrations with the mean difference of 22.9% (ranging from 0.95% to 93.34%). When the post-measurement adjustment using dilution correction was made, the mean percent average difference was 11.8%.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

odor; volatile organic compounds; air quality measurements; standardization; olfactometry

• Wydawca: Institute of Environmental Engineering, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Archives of Environmental Protection
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: Vol. 44, no. 2
• Strony: 100--107
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 12 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Maurer D. L.

• Iowa State University, USA

autor

Bragdon A. M.

• Iowa State University, USA

autor

Short B. C.

• Iowa State University, USA

autor

Ahn H.

• Chungnam National University, Republic of Korea
• Iowa State University, USA

autor

Koziel J. A.

• Iowa State University, USA

Bibliografia

• 1. Bokowa, A. (2013). Assessing Accuracy of a New Portable Olfactometer, Scentroid SM100 for Measuring Ambient Odours – A Comparative Analytical Study of SM100 and Traditional Olfactometry Techniques. ORTECH Environmental.
• 2. Bokowa, A.H. & Bokowa, M.A. (2017) Odour assessment methods: appropriate uses to obtain the most accurate results, Austrian Contributions to Veterinary Epidemiology, 9, pp. 21–35.
• 3. Benzo, M., Mantovani, A. & Pittarello, A. (2012) Measurement of odour concentration of immissions using a new field olfactometer and markers’ chemical analysis, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 30, pp. 103–108. DOI: 10.3303/CET1230018
• 4. Brancher, M., Griffiths, K., Franco, D. & de Melo Lisboa, H. (2016). A review of odour impact criteria in selected countries around the world, Chemosphere, 168, pp. 1531–1570. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.11.160.
• 5. Koziel, J.A., Spinhirne, J.P., Lloyd, J., Parker, D.B, Wright, D. & Kuhrt, F. (2005). Evaluation of sample recoveries of malodorous gases for odor bags, SPME, air sampling canisters, and sorbent tubes, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 55, pp. 1147–1157.
• 6. Laor, Y., Parker, D. & Page, T. (2014). Measurement, prediction, and monitoring of odor in the environment: a critical review, Reviews in Chemical Engineering, 30, pp. 139–166. DOI:10.1515/revce-2013-0026.
• 7. Parker, D.B., Perschbacher-Buser, Z.L., Cole, N.A., Rhoades, M. & Koziel, J.A. (2010). Recovery of agricultural odors and odorous compounds from polyvinyl fluoride film bags, Sensors, 10, pp. 8536–8552.
• 8. Redwine, J.S. & Lacey, R.E. (2000). A summary of state odor regulations pertaining to confined animal feeding operations. Air Pollution from Agricultural Operations, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 33–41.
• 9. Szylak-Szydlowski, M. (2014). Comparison of two types of field olfactometers for assessing odours in laboratory and field tests, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 40, pp. 67–72. DOI:10.3303/CET1440012.
• 10. Szylak-Szydlowski, M. (2016). Odour nuisance of railway sleepers saturated with creosote oil, Chemical Engineering Transactions, 54, pp. 163–168. DOI: 10.3303/CET1654028.
• 11. Walgraeve, C., Van Huffel, K., Bruneel, J. & Van Langenhove, H. (2015). Evaluation of the performance of field olfactometers by selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry, Biosystems Engineering, 137, pp. 84–94.
• 12. Zhu, W., Koziel, J.A., Cai, L., Wright, D. & Kuhrt, F. (2015). Testing odorants recovery from a novel metalized fluorinated ethylene propylene gas sampling bag, Journal of the Air & Waste Association, 65(12), pp. 1434–1445.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2018).