DMCA
Evaluation of Field-based Odor Assessment Methods
| Citations: | 1 - 0 self |
BibTeX
@MISC{Sheffield_evaluationof,
author = {Ron Sheffield and Matthew Thompson and Bobby Dye and David Parker},
title = {Evaluation of Field-based Odor Assessment Methods},
year = {}
}
Share
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
OpenURL
Abstract
This study investigates the differences between field-based odor assessment methods that may be used to discriminate odors from livestock and food processing facilities. Field olfactometers have been praised for their low cost ($500- $1200) and portability but criticized for their lack of control of inhalation rates by different panelists, the discomfort of glass inhalation tubes and the odor fatigue caused by poor nasal sealing or removing the scentometer between samples as compared to laboratory dynamic, triangular forced-choice olfactometers ($30,000). This study evaluated the variability of responses using these three field olfactometers compared to laboratory olfactometry, as well as field and lab odor intensity. Panel responses using laboratory dynamic, triangular force-choice olfactometry and Nasal Ranger field olfactometers were found to exhibit the least amount of variability across odor sources. Significant differences with poor correlation were found between field and laboratory odor intensity methods. Findings of this study should caution regulators, policy makers and investigators about establishing regulatory thresholds or reporting scientific data based on single odor analysis methods or techniques due to the variability in the performance of odor determination methods across the odorous sites investigated.
Keyphrases
field-based odor assessment method field olfactometers inhalation rate significant difference odor fatigue lab odor intensity $500 $1200 triangular force-choice olfactometry triangular forced-choice olfactometers laboratory olfactometry poor nasal sealing single odor analysis method odor source regulatory threshold policy maker laboratory odor intensity method food processing facility scientific data nasal ranger field olfactometers glass inhalation tube low cost different panelist odor determination method poor correlation odorous site
