-------
              AIR POLLUTION ASPECTS

                       OF

                ODOROUS COMPOUNDS
                Prepared for the
  National Air Pollution Control Administration
Consumer Protection & Environmental Health Service
   Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
           (Contract No. PH-22-68-25)
          Compiled by Ralph J. Sullivan
              Litton Systems, Inc.
         Environmental Systems Division
               7300 Pearl Street
            Bethesda, Maryland 20014

                 September 1969

-------
                          FOREWORD


       As the concern for air quality grows, so does the con-

cern over the less ubiquitous but potentially harmful contami-

nants that are in our atmosphere.  Thirty such pollutants have

been identified, and available information has been summarized

in a series of reports describing their sources, distribution,

effects, and control technology for their abatement.

       A total of 27 reports have been prepared covering the

30 pollutants.  These reports were developed under contract

for the National Air Pollution Control Administration  (NAPCA) by

Litton Systems, Inc.  The complete listing is as follows:


    Aeroallergens (pollens)       Ethylene
    Aldehydes (includes acrolein  Hydrochloric Acid
      and formaldehyde)           Hydrogen Sulfide
    Ammonia                       Iron and Its Compounds
    Arsenic and Its Compounds     Manganese and Its Compounds
    Asbestos                      Mercury and Its Compounds
    Barium and Its Compounds      Nickel and Its Compounds
    Beryllium and Its Compounds   Odorous Compounds
    Biological Aerosols           Organic Carcinogens
      (microorganisms)            Pesticides
    Boron and Its Compounds       Phosphorus and Its Compounds
    Cadmium and Its Compounds     Radioactive Substances
    Chlorine Gas                  Selenium and Its Compounds
    Chromium and Its Compounds    Vanadium and Its Compounds
      (includes chromic acid)     Zinc and Its Compounds


       These reports represent current state-of-the-art

literature reviews supplemented by discussions with selected

knowledgeable individuals both within and outside the  Federal

Government.  They do not however presume to be a synthesis of

available information but rather a summary without an  attempt

to interpret or reconcile conflicting data.  The reports are

-------
necessarily limited in their discussion of health effects for

some pollutants to descriptions of occupational health expo-

sures and animal laboratory studies since only a few epidemio-

logic studies were available.

       Initially these reports were generally intended as

internal documents within NAPCA to provide a basis for sound

decision-making on program guidance for future research

activities and to allow ranking of future activities relating

to the development of criteria and control technology docu-

ments.  However, it is apparent that these reports may also

be of significant value to many others in air pollution control,

such as State or local air pollution control officials, as a

library of information on which to base informed decisions on

pollutants to be controlled in their geographic areas.  Addi-

tionally, these reports may stimulate scientific investigators

to pursue research in needed areas.  They also provide for the

interested citizen readily available information about a given

pollutant.  Therefore, they are being given wide distribution

with the assumption that they will be used with full knowledge

of their value and limitations.

       This series of reports was compiled and prepared by the

Litton personnel listed below:

       Ralph J. Sullivan
       Quade R. Stahl, Ph.D.
       Norman L. Durocher
       Yanis C. Athanassiadis
       Sydney Miner
       Harold Finkelstein, Ph.D.
       Douglas A. Olsen, Ph0D.
       James L. Haynes

-------
       The NAPCA project officer for the contract was Ronald C.




Campbell, assisted by Dr. Emanuel Landau and Gerald Chapman.




       Appreciation is expressed to the many individuals both




outside and within NAPCA who provided information and reviewed




draft copies of these reports.  Appreciation is also expressed




to the NAPCA Office of Technical Information and Publications




for their support in providing a significant portion of the




technical literature.

-------
                        ABSTRACT







        Offensive odors provoke people into complaining




about air pollution.  They may cause both mental and physio-




logical effects such as nausea, headache, loss of sleep, loss




of appetite, impaired breathing, and in some cases allergic




reactions.  Community and personal pride and status may be




adversely affected by obnoxious odors in the vicinity-  Al-




though some governmental agencies have enacted laws pro-




hibiting air pollution that interferes with the reasonable




enjoyment of life and property, no odor pollution standards




have been established.




        The most offensive odors come from kraft paper mills,




animal rendering plants, chemical plants, petroleum refin-




eries, diesel engines, sewers and sewage treatment plants,




and metallurgical plants.  Other sources include industrial,




domestic, and natural odors.  These smells often pollute an




area 10 to 20 miles from the source.




        Several methods have been developed for abating most




odor pollution problems.  The most generally accepted method




is incineration at the source.  However, this may be supple-




mented or replaced with any of several other methods such as




adsorption, chemical scrubbing, containment, process changes,




and masking or counteracting the odors.

-------
        Economically, odor pollution depresses property




values.  The cost of abatement depends on the odor pollution




problem and the source.




        The human nose is the only reliable detector,  and




several laboratory and field methods have been developed to




quantify human observations.

-------
                        CONTENTS

FOREWORD

ABSTRACT

1.  INTRODUCTION	     1

2.  EFFECTS	     4

    2.1  Effects on Humans	     4
         2.1.1  Characteristics of Odors 	     4
                2.1.1.1  Odor Intensity  	     4
                2.1.1.2  Odor Quality  	     9
                2.1.1.3  Odor Acceptability  ....    14
                2.1.1.4  Odor Pervasiveness  ....    15
         2.1.2  Physiological and Psychological
                Aspects of Odors	    16
                2.1.2.1  Public Opinion  	    19
                2.1.2.2  Allergies and Odors ....    24
         2.1.3  Theories of Olfaction	    30
    2.2  Effects on Animals	    33
         2.2.1  Commercial and Domestic Animals  .  .    33
         2.2.2  Experimental Animals 	    33
    2.3  Effects on Plants	    33
    2.4  Effects on Materials	    34
    2.5  Environmental Air Standards 	    34

3.  SOURCES	    37

    3.1  Natural Occurrence  	  .....    39
    3.2  Production Sources  	    41
         3.2.1  Petroleum Industry 	    41
         3.2.2  Petrochemical Plant Complexes  ...    45
         3.2.3  Chemical Industry  	    45
         3.2.4  Pulp and Paper Mills	    47
         3.2.5  Coke Ovens and Coal	    51
         3.2.6  Iron-Steel Industry and Foundries  .    52
         3.2.7  Food Processing	    53
         3.2.8  Meat Industry	    54
                3.2.8.1  Feedlots  .	    54
                3.2.8.2  Livestock Slaughtering  .  .    56
                3.2.8.3  Inedible Rendering of
                         Animal Matter	  .    57
                3.2.8.4  Fish Processing 	    61
                3.2.8.5  Edible Meats  	    62
                3.2.8.6  Tanneries 	    62
         3.2.9  Miscellaneous Production Sources .  .    63

-------
                  CONTENTS (Continued)

    3.3  Product Sources	    63
    3.4  Other Sources	    63
         3.4.1  Combustion Processes	    63
                3.4.1.1  Diesel Engine Odors ....    65
                3.4.1.2  Aircraft Odors  	    73
         3.4.2  Sewage	    75
         3.4.3  Miscellaneous Other Sources  ....    77
    3.5  Environmental Air Concentrations  	    78

4.  ABATEMENT	    79

    4.1  Petroleum Industry  	    85
    4.2  Chemical Industry 	    85
    4.3  Pulp and Paper Mills	    86
    4.4  Coke Ovens and Coal	    91
    4.5  Diesel Engine Odors 	    92
    4.6  Meat Industry	    93
         4.6.1  Feedlots	    93
         4.6.2  Livestock Slaughtering 	    95
         4.6.3  Inedible Rendering of Animal Matter     96
    4.7  Sevrage	    98

5.  ECONOMICS	   100

6.  METHODS OF ANALYSIS	   105

    6.1  Sampling Methods  	   105
    6.2  Qualitative Methods 	   105
    6.3  Quantitative Methods	   106
         6.3.1  Organoleptic Methods  	   106
         6.3.2  Instrumental Methods  	   110

7.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS	   Ill

REFERENCES	   115

APPENDIX A	   153

APPENDIX B	   156

APPENDIX C	   241

-------
                      LIST OF FIGURES


1.  Odor Quality Chart	153

2.  Location of Kraft Mills in the United States ....   154

3.  Typical Rates of Odor Emissions and of Vapor
    Emissions from a Batch-Type Rendering Cooker
    Reducing Inedible Animal Matter  	   155

-------
                      LIST OF TABLES




1.  Reported Odor Threshold Concentrations of Hydrogen

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.
13.

14.

15.

16.

17.
18.
19.
Sulfide 	
Recognition Odor Threshold of Odorants 	
Odor Addition or Synergism in Mixtures 	
Crocker -Henderson Odor Classification Standards . . .
Amoore Classification of Odor Quality 	
Odor Qualities of Selected Odorants 	
Public Opinion Surveys Relating Odors to Air
Pollution 	
Complaints Relating Odors to Property Damage and
Health in Terre Haute, Ind. 	
Odors by Time of Day in the St. Louis Metropolitan
Area 	
Effect of the Day of the Week on Odor Nuisance

Effect of the Time of Day on Odor Nuisance
Occurrences 	
Effect of Temperature on Odor Nuisance Occurrences
Effect of Atmospheric Pressure on Odor Nuisance
Occurrences 	
Effect of Relative Humidity on Odor Nuisance
Occurrences 	
Effect of Wind Velocity on Odor Nuisance
Occurrences 	
Effect of Changing Temperature, Pressure, and
Relative Humidity on Odor Nuisance Occurrences . . .
Effect of Time of Year on Odor Nuisance Occurrences .
Theories of Olfaction 	
Most Frequently Reported Odor Sources 	
156
157
170
171
172
173

194

194

195

196

196
197

197

198

198

199
199
200
203

-------
20.  Nature of Air Contaminants Emanating from Various

21.
22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

33.

34.
35.

36.

37.
38.


Types of Sources 	
Odor Concentration Measured in Various Plants ....
Atmospheric Contaminants Recovered from Charcoal
after 30-Day Manned Experiment 	
Potential Sources of Odorous Emissions from Oil
Refineries 	
Crude Oil Capacity in the United States as of
January 1969 	
Sulfur Production from Hydrogen Sulfide in the
United States 	
Range of Sulfur Gas Concentrations Encountered in
Kraft Mill Sampling 	
Estimated Emissions from Kraft Pulp Mill in

November Odor Survey in Lewiston-Clarkston Area . . .
April Odor Survey in Lewiston-Clarkston Area ....

Sources of Odorous Emissions in Coke Plants 	
Odor Concentrations and Emission Rates from

Typical Odor Emissions From Rotary Fish Meal Driers
Without Odor Control 	
Odor Emissions from Apartment House Incinerators . .
Odor Intensity of Diesel Exhaust and Concentration

Computed Concentrations at Odor Thresholds of Diluted

Analysis of Diesel Engine Exhaust 	
Diesel Exhaust Emissions and Percent of Time at Each
Power Setting for Two-Cycle Diesel Bus Operating in
Detroit 	
205
206

207

208

209

210

211

212
213
214
215
216

217

218
219

220

221
222


223

-------
39.  Odor Emissions from Jet Aircraft Exhaust	    224

40.  Number, Type, and Location of Odor Observations Near
     John F. Kennedy Airport	    225

41.  Control of Odors by Incineration	    227

42.  Odor Emissions from Typical Industrial Equipment and
     Odor Control Devices	    228

43.  Odor Removal Efficiencies of Condensers or
     Afterburners, or Both, Venting a Typical Dry
     Rendering Cooker  	    232

44.  Odor Reduction in Polluted Air by Potassium
     Permanganate  	    233

45.  Typical Costs of Basic and Control Equipment
     Installed in Los Angeles County 	    234

46.  Control Expenditures by Types of Emissions in the
     Petroleum Industry  	    239

47.  Economic Analysis of Three Types of Condensers for
     Rendering Plants  	    240

-------
1.  INTRODUCTION




            Odorous compounds may have pleasant or unpleasant




    odors:  an odor which is quite acceptable to one person may




    be unacceptable to another person.  Although the quality of




    an odor is highly subjective, all healthy people are usually




    aware of odors and generally agree that some odorous com-




    pounds are obnoxious.  Some of these offensive odors can be




    detected when the odorant is present in very low concentra-




    tions.  For these reasons, malodors are one of the first




    manifestations of air pollution, and they frequently arouse




    extreme emotional reactions in people.   Offensive odors are




    capable of producing nausea, vomiting,  and headache; curbing




    the appetite, impairing nutrition, and  curtailing water




    intake; disturbing sleep; upsetting the stomach; hampering




    proper breathing; offending the senses; and interfering with




    enjoyment of property.  Most of all, bad odors can mar good




    dispositions and provoke emotional disturbances, mental




    depression, and irritability-126




            Sociologically, such noxious odors can ruin personal




    and community pride,  interfere with human relations in




    various ways, discourage capital improvements, lower socio-




    economic status, and  damage a community's reputation.




    Economically, they can stifle growth and development of a

-------
community-  Both industry and labor prefer to locate in a




desirable area in which to live, work, and play; and the




natural tendency is to avoid communities with obvious odor




problems.  Tourists also shun such areas.  The resulting




decline in property values, tax revenues, payrolls, and




sales can be disastrous to a community.^^




        No instrument has been developed with the sensi-




tivity and versatility of the human nose for odor detection.




Therefore, the methods currently used for odor measurement




involve personal judgments by one or more people; results




obtained are expensive and lack the desired precision.




        The mode of expressing observation results is




strictly of a qualitative nature.  It is based largely upon




the olfactory sense without any guide beyond human ability




to associate and describe personal reaction.  As a result,




odors are often given such descriptive terms as dead-cat,




wet-dog, manorial, rotten-egg, spoiled-fish, and others.




In addition,  the intensity of the odor is often rated on an




arbitrary scale of 1 to 5.  Such a system, of course, depends




to a great degree upon the acuity of the observer's nose,




his past experiences, and his ability to describe his reac-




tion accurately.  The most useful observation from an




engineering point of view is to measure the number of dilu-




tions which are necessary to reduce the odorant to the odor

-------
threshold concentration.




        Odor may be defined as the sensation of smell per-




ceived as a result of olfactory stimulus.65  An odorant is




a substance or mixture of substances that produces the




sensation of smell. -*




        The scope of this report is limited to the odor per




se, not the toxic or chemical aspects of odorants.  The




reader is referred to the companion reports of this series




for the toxic and chemical aspects of some odorous sub-




stances, such as hydrogen sulfide, aldehydes, chlorine,




hydrochloric acid, ammonia, and ethylene.

-------
2.  EFFECTS




    2.1  Effects on Humans




            To keep alive man must breathe.  A single sniff of




    air may delight him with the perfume of vanillin, may




    nauseate him with a fecal odor, may warn him of the presence




    of toxic quantities of hydrogen sulfide, or may start his




    digestive juices flowing with the aroma of a broiling steak.




    Thus, odors may affect man in various ways, depending not




    only on the characteristics of the odor, but also on the




    particular man and his environment.




    2.1.1  Characteristics of Odors




    2.1.1.1  Odor Intensity




            The human nose is an extremely sensitive gaseous




    detector.  It can respond to thousands of different odor




    stimuli and detect both low and high concentrations of




    gaseous materials simultaneously.  Moreover, the odorants




    may originate from sources at relatively great distances




    away.  The intensity of the odor is defined as the numerical




    or verbal indication of the strength of an odor-294




            Experimental findings on discerning odor intensity




    show that an average observer can distinguish between three




    intensities—weak, medium, and strong—whereas a trained




    observer may distinguish between five degrees of intensity,294

-------
and an expert can distinguish six.190  Since 1920, experts

have been rating the intensity of various odors by using the

following scale:

                Odor              Expert
              Intensity         Description140

                  0             No odor

                  1             Very faint

                  2             Faint

                  3             Easily noticeable

                  4             Strong

                  5             Very strong

        Trained observers have used290'294 the following

scale to determine the odor intensity of tobacco smoke, as

well as of domestic and industrial odors:

                Odor               Odor
                                           oo
              Intensity         Description"^^

                  0             A concentration of an odorant
                                which produces no sensation.

                  1             Concentration which is just
                                detectable (the threshold
                                dilution).

                  2             A distinct and definite odor
                                whose unpleasant charac-
                                teristics are revealed or
                                foreshadowed (the recognition
                                threshold).

                  3             An odor strong enough to
                                cause a person to attempt to
                                avoid it completely.

-------
                  4             An odor so strong as to be
                                overpowering and intoler-
                                able for any length of time.

        The sensation of intensity of an odor varies expo-

nentially with the concentration of the odorant.  This

phenomenon is described by the well-known Weber-Fechner

Psychophysical Law/  which states that the intensity of the

sensation is proportional to the logarithm of the strength

of the stimulus.  For the sensation of odor this may be

expressed as


                     I = k In C

        where I is the intensity of the odor sensation
              k is a constant

              and C is the concentration of odorant.



        The data for three odorants, ethyl mercaptan, butyl

thioether, and crotonaldehyde, follow this law over extremely

large changes in concentrations.  The range of intensity

from 0 to 5 covers eight log cycles for ethyl mercaptan, six

for butyl thioether,  and four for crotonaldehyde.

        The concentration of odorant that just gives an

intensity of zero may be defined as the detection threshold con-

centration. 127,217  However,  this odor threshold concentration

is more commonly defined as the minimum concentration which

-------
will result in the stimulation of the olfactory nerves.  All




people do not have the same sensitivity for detection of




odors.190  Therefore, an odor panel may be used to determine




the odor threshold concentration.26  As a result, the odor




threshold may be reported as the "effective dosage" where




100 percent (ED100)/ 50 percent (ED50), or 0 percent (EDo)




of panelists perceive the odor.  EDso is the most commonly




used.  Tests are usually conducted to eliminate persons




either highly sensitive or insensitive to odors from odor




panels.  (These tests are described in Section 6 .)




        Two other bases of determining odor concentrations




have been used:  a recognition threshold concentration—the




concentration at which the odor quality can be recognized;




and the objectionability concentration—the concentration




where the odor becomes objectionable.  Leonardos et al.1^4




have argued that the recognition sensation is more repro-




ducible than the detection sensation.




        Unfortunately, odor threshold measurements depend




largely on the purity of the odorant.  Therefore, odor




threshold concentrations of "pure" odorants vary widely,




often overlapping both detection and recognition threshold




concentrations.  For example, the reported odor threshold




concentrations of hydrogen sulfide as shown in Table 1,

-------
                                                          8
Appendix B, vary from 0.65 to 1,400 |ag/m3.  Odor recognition

threshold concentrations of odorants are  listed in Table 2,

Append ix B.

        The intensities of a mixture of odorants may be

independent, counteractive, additive, or  synergistic.236

For example, if odorants A and B are mixed, the odor inten-

sity  (I) may be

                   Independence
                       IAB = k In  (CA or  CB)

                   Counteraction
                       IAB < k In  (CA or  CB)

                   Addition
                       IAB = k in  (cA  +  CB)

                   Synergism
                       IAB > k in  (CA  +  CB)

        Mixtures of butanol and pyridine  showed an additive

effect on the odor intensity at the odor  threshold, whereas

the addition of p-cresol to the mixture showed a synergistic

effect, as shown in Table 3, Appendix B.

        Tkach2^-*- reported that the odors  of acetone and

acetophenone are additive, and Stayzhkin257 reported that

the odors of hydrochloric acid and chlorine are additive.

        Horstman et al.116 have listed some of the factors

which reportedly influence the olfactory  sensitivity:

-------
        (1)  The odor sensitivity of the individual observer




varies from day to day, but the overall sensitivity of a




group of observers is reasonably constant.




        (2)  The sense of smell becomes rapidly fatigued,



though fatigue for one odor does not necessarily affect the



perception of dissimilar odors.




        (3)  Responses to odors are not completely objective



since psychological responses vary in different observers.




What is unpleasant to one observer may be quite acceptable




to another, and so may not be noted.



        (4)  The sensitivity of observers varies widely;



some have extreme sensitivity while others are incapable of




smelling an odor.  The age of the observer seems to have an



effect on sensitivity:  sensitivity reaches a maximum at



puberty and decreases with age.




        (5)  Meteorological factors influence reported odor




levels; wind speed and vertical temperature gradient influ-



ence the dilution of odors.  Temperature and humidity affect




odor perception,  but there is considerable disagreement



about their precise influence.




2.1.1.2  Odor Quality




       Odor quality is a verbal description of the odor.




The quality may be described in terms of such familiar

-------
                                                          10
odorants as coffee, onions, lemons  (characteristic odors),

or by associating an unfamiliar odor with a familiar odor.

The observer often does not possess the vocabulary to des-

cribe the odor he smells.  Summer^72 suggests that there may

be 2,500 olfactory receptors, each capable of detecting a

different quality of odor, and the combination of these

odors may produce hundreds of thousands of odor qualities.

As a result of the complexity of describing odors, various

systems have been devised to classify the odor quality, thus

providing an observer with a vocabulary for odor description.

Gruber^6 reported a "clock" chart attributed to Dean Foster.*

This chart is presented in Figure 1, Appendix A.

        McCord and Witheridge-^O have listed three different

systems for classifying odor quality/ as follows:

        A.  Zwaardemaker's classification has nine categories:

        (1)  Ethereal or fruity:  characteristic in general
of fruits and due in most cases to the presence of various
esters; includes also beeswax and certain ethers, aldehydes,
and Tee tones

        (2)  Aromatic

             a.  Camphoraceous:  borneol, camphor, eucalyp-
                 tole

             b.  Spicy:  eugenol, ginger, pepper, cinnamon,
                 cassia, mace
        *Head of the Psychophysical Laboratory at the
Joseph E. Seagram Co., Louisville, Ky.

-------
             c.  Anise-lavender:  anethole, lavender,
                 menthol, thymol, safrole, peppermint

             d.  Lemon-rose:  geraniol, citral, linalyl
                 acetate, sandalwood

             e.  Amygdalin:  benzaldehyde, oil of bitter
                 almond, nitrobenzene, prussic acid,
                 salicylaldehyde

        (3)  Fragrant or balsamic

             a.  Floral:  jasmine, ilang-ilang, orange
                 blossom, lilac, terpineol, lily of the
                 valley

             b.  Lily:  tuberose, narcissus, hyacinth,
                 orris, violet, ionone, mignonette

             c.  Balsamic:  vanillin, piperonal, coumarin,
                 balsams of Peru and Tolu

        (4)  Ambrosial:  musk and amber.  Present in the
flesh, blood, and excreta of certain animals

        (5)  Alliaceous or garlic:  onion, garlic, and many
compounds of sulfur, selenium, tellurium, and arsenic

             a.  Alliaceous:  hydrides of sulfur, selenium,
                 and tellurium, mercaptans, organic sulfides
                 thioacetone, asafetida

             b.  Cacodyl fish odors:  hydrides of phosphorus
                 and arsenic, cacodyl compounds, trimethyla-
                 mine

             c.  Bromine odors:  bromine, chlorine, quinone

        (6)  Empyreumatic or burnt:  as in tar, baked bread,
roasted coffee, tobacco, benzene, naphthalene, phenol, and
products of the dry distillation of wood

        (7)  Hircine or goaty:  due in the case of this
animal to the caproic and caprylic esters contained in the
sweat and typified also by perspiration and cheese

-------
                                                          12
        (8)  Repulsive:  such as given off by many of the
narcotic plants and by acanthus

        (9)  Nauseating or  fetid:  such as given off by
products of putrefaction (feces, etc.) and by certain plants

        B.  Henning's odor classification lists only six

basic qualities:

        (1)  Spicy:  conspicuous in cloves, cinnamon, nut-
meg, etc.

        (2)  Flowery:  conspicuous in heliotrope, jasmine,
etc.

        (3)  Fruity:  conspicuous in apple, orange oil,
vinegar, etc.

        (4)  Resinous:  conspicuous in coniferous oils and
turpentine

        (5)  Foul:  conspicuous in hydrogen sulfide and
products of decay

        (6)  Burnt:  conspicuous in tarry and scorched
substances

        C.  The Crocker-Henderson classification is repre-

sented by four fundamental odor sensations:

        (1)  Fragrant or sweet

        (2)  Acid or sour

        (3)  Burnt or empyreumatic

        (4)  Caprylic, goaty, or oenanthic

        These four fundamental odor sensations were ranked in

intensity from 0 to 8 and expressed as four-digit numbers

for each odorant.  On this basis a substance without odor

-------
                                                         13
would appear as 0000.  Ethanol appears as 5414.  The first




digit represents the fragrant character; the second digit,




acid; the third, burnt; and the fourth, caprylic.  The odor




standards listed in Table 4, Appendix B, serve to illustrate




the numerical method of coding the odor quality.




        Amoore-1-2 has determined the number of fundamental




odors by arranging some 600 compounds into groups with




similar odors.  The odors that occurred most frequently were




assumed to be the primary odors—the first seven odors




listed in Table 5, Appendix B.




        Moncrieff19° has listed the odor quality of a large




number of odorants.  A representative number of these have




been listed in Table 6, Appendix B.




        The untrained observer has difficulty using any of




the above systems for odor description and must resort to




using common terms to describe the odor.  Horstman et al.




allowed student observers to describe the odor quality in




their own words and then reduced the odor qualities to the




following:




                Code          Odor Description




                0             flowers




                1             pulp mill




                2             smoke, woodsmoke

-------
                                                          14
                3             burning leaves




                4             mustiness




                5             gasoline




                6             rendering plant




                7             rubbish burning




                8             animal odors




                9             miscellaneous odors




                none          no odor




        The odor quality may change with dilution.  In




mixtures of odorants this may be because one odorant is more




pervasive than the other odorant.  Single component systems




may also exhibit quality changes on dilution.  The reason



                                 979
for this is not fully understood.




2.1.1.3  Odor Acceptability




        An odor may be either acceptable or unacceptable




depending on its intensity and quality.  The odors of new-




mown hay or honeysuckle and roses are indicative of accep-




table odors at normal concentrations.  However, obnoxious




odors may be unacceptable at much lower concentrations and




become acceptable only at very low intensities.  At high inten-



                                                            772
sities the normally acceptable perfumes can be unacceptable.
        Moncrief f --   studied the acceptability of 132 odors




and ranked them according to their acceptability.  Those

-------
                                                         15
compounds found least acceptable were mercaptans, sulfides,

disulfides, amines, and aldehydes.  He also observed that

various people have odor preferences depending on age, sex,

vocation, and environment.  From these observations he

wrote 124 rules of odor preference.

2.1.1.4  Odor Pervasiveness

        Odor pervasiveness is the ability of an odor to per-

vade a large volume of air and still continue to possess a

detectable intensity.  Nadar-*-^ referred to it as odor poten-

tial or threshold dilution ratios.  An odor unit* has been

defined to describe the number of dilutions necessary to

reduce the odor to the threshold concentration.  A pervasive

odor is one whose odor intensity changes very little on dilu-

tion.  Mathematically, the pervasiveness is indicated by the

slope (value of k) in the Weber-Fechner equation (Section

2.1.1.1).  The pervasiveness increases as the value of k

decreases.  Of the three odorants mentioned in Section 2.1.1.1,

ethyl mercaptan is more pervasive than butyl thioether, which

in turn is more pervasive than crotonaldehyde.
        *The number of odor units is equal to the volumes
(standard cubic feet) of air necessary to dilute the concen-
tration of odorant in one volume (standard cubic foot) of air
to the threshold concentration.  For example, 100 odor units/
scf require 99 cubic feet of dilution air to reduce the
odorant in one cubic foot of air to the threshold concentra-
tion.

-------
                                                          16
2.1.2  Physiological and Psychological Aspects of Odors




        The influence of odors on the health and comfort of




man is difficult to prove.  Odors in themselves are usually




not the cause of organic disease.  However, the odorant may




incite an allergic response.  It is obvious that some highly




toxic substances, such as hydrogen sulfide, are associated




with offensive odors; but the dangerous properties of these




types of substances do not derive from the odor itself.  In




fact, odor is valuable in serving as a warning of the




presence of an injurious gas.  Odor bears no relationship to




toxicity, and some poisonous gases are odorless or have a




rather pleasant odor.  McCord and Witheridge^-' ^ have indi-




cated that foul odors may cause poor appetite for food,




lowered water consumption, impaired respiration, nausea and




vomiting, insomnia, and "mental perturbation."




        Winslow and Palmer    exposed human subjects* to the




ordinary air of an unventilated room containing whatever




polluting substances were given off by their  bodies  and garments,




These persons were exposed 4 to 7 hours daily.  The chief




findings were that there were differences in food consumption




on test days and control days.  About 5 percent more food was




consumed when the supply of air was fresh.  The authors con-




cluded that breathing the stale air diminished food intake.
        *Number of persons exposed was not reported.

-------
                                                         17
        In another study, Winslow and Harrington^00 exposed




eight young men four or five mornings each week for several




winter months to an odor recognized as heated house dust.




The test odor was emitted into the room slowly so that sub-




jects were unaware of which days were test days.  Olfactory




fatigue prevented them from perceiving the odor, while an




observer entering the test room would immediately recognize




the odor.  The consumption of the noon meal was evaluated




as part of the test.  There was no difference in the consump-




tion of potato salad on test and control days, but macaroni




and cheese showed a 13 percent rejection on odor test days.




As the test progressed, this rejection decreased to 6 percent,




        McCord and Witheridge170 report that odors appearing




in drinking water immediately cause a community to resort to




bottled drinks.  However, at sulfur spring spas, people will




joyously drink the odoriferous liquid, at times relying on




the odors themselves to restore health.




        McCord and Witheridge170 also point out that respira-




tion may be impaired-  When an unwanted odor is in the air,




the tendency is to engage in two or three deep appraising




sniffs.  If the odor is deemed offensive, the person will




resort to shallow, slow breaths or mouth breathing to avoid




the odor.  Where the odor is widespread in a community,

-------
                                                          18
windows and doors may be sealed in an attempt to keep out




the odor.  The investigators state that in some cases odors




may produce nausea and vomiting.  Occasionally, the presence




of continuous odors may induce persistent vomiting.




        The most frequent effects of odors on human health,




according to McCord and Witheridge,17° are insomnia and




mental perturbation.  They point out that many people




regularly have difficulty sleeping and that any disturbance




may prevent sleep, often after the person has been aroused




from a deep sleep by an offensive odor.  They admit that the




extent to which odors contribute to loss of sleep cannot be




proved; but they assert that odors do cause loss of sleep




and, therefore, affect the health of a community.  Long




continuous exposure to offensive odors  arouses a person to




anger.  Otherwise calm persons may become mildly maniacal,




hysterical, and capable of carrying out acts entirely




foreign to their usual natures.  Thus odors may affect the




mental health of a person.




        Petri213 states that malodorous substances may cause




headaches, nausea, and similar phenomena.  Even inherently




fragrant substances, such as flavorings and chocolates, can




cause considerable discomfort with protracted exposure, or




at high concentrations.  According to Petri, the psycho-




logical effects of an odor are highly subjective.  Thus, the

-------
                                                           19
nuisance value of an odor depends on the attitude of the




person, his disposition, and the time of day-




        Air pollution in the form of malodors has been cited




as the reason for certain lawsuits, picketing, rioting, and



                                194-
even forceful closure of plants.




2.1.2.1  Public Opinion




        Opinion surveys often place offensive odors at the




top of the list of air pollutants.  However, this is not




always the case but depends largely on the type of pollution




within the city.  Table 7, Appendix B, shows the results of




some surveys which have been made.  The data presented in




Table 7 were taken from opinion surveys in which questions




were asked such as "What do you think the words 'Air




Pollution1 mean to most people in this area?"  Possible




multiple choice answers were listed as "frequent bad smells,"




"too much dust," "frequent haze," etc.  Jonsson-*-^ points out




that the results of any opinion survey depend on how the




question is worded and the groups surveyed—their socio-




economic status, education, age, and sex.  Therefore, it is




difficult if not impossible to compare results of surveys




taken in different areas using different questionnaires.




Moreover, the problems of measuring reactions to odors have




not been solved, nor have methods been developed for ade-




quately measuring the odor exposure in an area.  Some

-------
                                                          20
examples of reactions to odors and attempts to assess the




odor pollution effect on the health and welfare of the




population are presented below.




        Where a large percentage of the people are affected,




concern about odors is often high.  The frequent bad smells




emanating from a pulp mill in Lewiston, Idaho—about 4




miles upwind from Clarkston, Wash.—resulted in a petition




signed by 495 of the 7,000 residents of Clarkston.  It read,




in part, "This contamination of our air and its odor affects




us from headaches, watery eyes, runny noses, and breathing




difficulties, to paint corrosion or other property damages.




This area has put up with this problem for 17 years, which




is long enough."  One resident states, "I believe the




horrible, rotten stench coming from the smokestacks of the




Potlatch pulp mill here in Lewiston is killing me; I am




afraid to remain here; I don't want my family or myself to




die premature deaths."6




        A cooperative study172'268 of the air pollution




problem in the Clarkston-Lewiston Valley revealed that




malodorous gases, including hydrogen sulfide, organic




mercaptans,  and organic sulfides emitted from the kraft pulp




mill, were the major air pollution problem.  Studies showed




that 12 times during the 5-year period 1957 to 1961  (or

-------
                                                           21
approximately twice each year) meteorological conditions




existed which may have caused air pollution episodes




lasting 48 hours or more.




        Terre Haute, Ind ., is another city where public




opinion has run high against odor pollution.  Complaints of




odors causing health and property damage were received by




the mayor, the police, the Board of Health, and U.S. Public




Health Service representatives.  The number of complaints




received in a 2-week period are given in Table 8, Appendix B.




These included claims of adverse effects on health (referring




to nausea, vomiting, headaches, diarrhea, and throat irrita-




tion), with or without additional complaints referring to




property damage (paint damage).




        A brief investigation7 by a Public Health Service




physician failed to show any increase in illnesses being




treated by local physicians or admissions to the hospital.




However, when the Public Health Service physician and an




epidemiologist toured the affected areas, they themselves




experienced nausea and throat irritation, accompanied by the




obnoxious odors.  Interviews with the complainants revealed




that




        (1)  Two out of three who complained were women.




        (2)  Nineteen of twenty persons interviewed reported




experiencing symptoms associated with odor air pollution.

-------
                                                          22
Of a total of 65 individuals of all ages in the 20 house-




holds studied, 37 to 57 percent were reported to have




symptoms.




         (3)  Affected individuals usually complained of more




than one symptom:  13 complained of nausea, five complained




of being awakened at night, five reported burning eyes, and




four reported shortness of breath.  Other symptoms reported




were cough, headache, anorexia, acute asthma attack,




nervousness, weight loss, diarrhea, fever, gagging, and




heaviness in the chest.




         (4)  Eight of twenty did not list any gastro-




intestinal symptoms.




         (5)  The symptoms were usually short in duration and




ceased when the odor became weaker or disappeared.




        Ten local physicians who were consulted agreed that




the city's malodorous air caused nausea, sleep disturbances,




loss of appetite, and a distressing physical and emotional




environment in which to live.




        Hydrogen sulfide concentration measurements showed




good agreement between its concentration and the odor




episodes.  The most likely source was a 36-acre lagoon used




for biodegradation of organic industrial wastes.




        Another odor episode occurred in St. Louis, Mo., on




November 24, 1963, during an odor survey of the city.  Over

-------
                                                          23
100 complaints were registered with the St. Louis Police




Department and Laclede Gas Company before 8:00 p.m.  Al-




though odor surveys were taken at 8:00, 10:00, and 12:00 p.m.,




the exact cause of the trouble was not pinpointed.  However,




it was postulated that an industrial breakdown or spill must




have taken place on the Illinois side of the Mississippi




River.131  Firemen made the odor survey, and their reports




of pleasant and unpleasant odors reflect public opinion to




some degree.  The results of their surveys are given in




Table 9, Appendix B.




        Huey et al.118 have studied effects of the day of




the week, time of day, temperature, atmospheric pressure,




humidity, and wind velocity on the number of complaints




received from residents near an animal rendering plant.  The




odors emitted from the plant were described as offensive,




nauseating, repulsive, and repugnant.  The data shown in




Tables 10-17, Appendix B, indicate that the number of com-




plaints (1) increases on weekends, (2) increases during the




day, (3) increases with rising temperature, (4) is higher




when atmospheric pressure is above 28.84 inches mercury,




(5) increases with decreasing humidity, (6) does not change




with wind velocity, and (7) is highest in the summer months.




        In its 1960 report, "National Goals in Air Pollution




Research," the Surgeon General's ad hoc task group on air

-------
                                                         24
pollution research goals states:    "The aspects of air




pollution which are most apparent and of greatest personal




concern to the individual are irritation to the eyes, nose,




and throat; malodors; and reduction of visibility.  The




pollutants responsible for these effects are undesirable,




whether or not they cause long-range health effects or




economic losses, because they constitute an annoyance to




people.  The nuisance of these effects, together with those




related to soiling, give rise to the greatest number of




complaints received by air pollution control authorities.




There is no doubt that a person's well-being is eventually




affected by exposure to these sensory annoyances and that




this may result in economic loss."




2.1.2.2  Allergies and Odors




        Odors may cause attacks of asthma or other allergic




conditions.  In 1882 Salter    described asthmatic attacks




produced by effluvium from hay, smell of mustard, odors




from skins of animals, smell of a lucifer match, odors from




fermenting foods, odors from cheese, smell of violets,




burning wood, smoky air,  sulfur fumes, smell of paint, foul




air in crowded rooms, gas  escape,  camphor, tobacco smoke,




smell of linseed, smell of horses, cattle, dogs, and rabbits.




In 1932 Feinberg and Aries80 described asthma resulting from




odors of cooking shrimp,  beans, and lentils.

-------
                                                          25
        In many cases it is difficult to prove whether an

allergic patient was affected by an odor or the odorant

substance itself.  Odorants from trees, shrubs, flowers,

fabrics, animals, and household articles  are ordinarily

harmless to individuals not subject to allergies.  However,

these substances can, in small amounts under proper condi-

tions, incite an allergic attack in sensitized indi-

viduals . H5

        Horeshll5 has reviewed the importance of nonspecific

factors as provocateurs of allergic symptoms.  He found

odorous agents of etiological significance in asthma, aller-

gic rhinitis, allergic croup and tracheitis, atopic derma-

titis, urticaria, allergic headaches, and gastrointestinal

allergy.

        Odorous substances have been cited as causing

allergic symptoms or illnesses by various authorities as

follows:

            Odorous Substance       Reference

            Cleaning fluid          92
            Cooking odors           92
            Feces                   130
            Fish                    60,64,79,288
            Food                    40,56,76,106,114,224,
                                     226,240,262,271,275,
                                     311
            Formaldehyde            115,226
            Fresh paint             59,60,92,279,288
            Furniture polish        115

-------
                                                          26
            Gasoline                92
            Lighter fluid           115
            Moth balls              92
            Newspaper print         84,115
            Oils                    33,262
            Perfume                 310
            Rubber                  115
            Spices                  115
            Tobacco smoke           92,100,115,237,247,
                                     276
            Turpentine              288
            Wood smoke              54,66,115,225

        A questionnaire was devised by Brown and Colombo"^

to determine the number of their patients whose illnesses

were significantly affected by odorants.  A series of 200

patients in whom fumes, odors, and smells caused major

symptoms was thus collected over a period of 10 years.

Substances thought to be responsible were dimethyl sulfide,

perfumes, cooking odors, gas, bleaching fluid, soap powders,

deodorants, hair tonics, shaving lotions, fresh paint,

kerosene, wood smoke, tobacco smoke, cleaning fluids, shoe

polish, lighter fluid, spot removers, furniture polish, fluid

insecticides, melting ironing wax, sweeping compounds and

cedar dusts, freshly printed newspapers and typewriter

ribbons, coal smoke from stoves or locomotives, pine wood,

turpentine, moth balls, plastic furniture covers, floor wax,

carbon paper, asphalt, chlordane, lindane, DDT, and

weathered apples.  A similar list of odors and fumes which

cause directly or nonspecifically allergic reactions was

-------
                                                         27
compiled by Deamer.-^  Included were such items as gasoline




odors, smoke from any source, gas, wood odors, paint odors,




household odors such as ammonia and floor wax, cosmetics,




and food odors.




        Food odorants in low concentrations also commonly




excite allergic symptoms.  Horesh^-^-2 reported on allergy to




food odors and the role these odors play in the etiology of




infantile atopic dermatitis.  Foods most frequently incrimi-




nated were eggs and fish, although chicken, pork, bacon, and




cabbage were also mentioned.  Atopic dermatitis was reported




in a series of nine cases—the majority infants, but some,




older children.  In these patients the allergic signs and




symptoms were provoked or aggravated by the mere presence




of the foods in the patient's environment.




        Urbach^S reviewed the effect of food odors on




allergic symptoms up to 1941.  He reported that allergic




symptoms were elicited from the odors of the following




foods:  fish, milk, egg, asparagus, coffee, garlic, onion,




sage, apple, and lemon.




        That the odor rather than the pollen can be the




cause of allergic symptoms has been reported by other inves-




tigators.  Biederman^S described effects from a number of




flowers and presented experimental evidence to support his




views that odor, not pollen, was the cause of the symptoms.

-------
                                                          28
Urbach288 accepted the possibility that pollens head the list of




allergens responsible for most allergic rhinitis, but




called attention to the frequently forgotten fact that




plant odors can also be a cause.  Urbach noted cases




in which nasal symptoms or asthma were produced by the




odors from roses, locust trees, linden trees, mock oranges,




carnations, privet, lilies, common elders, lilacs, lilies




of the valley, and violets.  He also reported a patient who




developed asthma from the odor of a pine forest, pine needle




extract, and pine soap.  Observations by Sticker,262




Mackenzie, ^0 an(3 Goodale^4 showed that the fragrance of




roses and certain other flowers can cause the symptoms of




hay fever, and experimental evidence was presented to con-




firm the fact that it was the odor and not the pollen that




produced the symptoms.  Thus, instead of pollen, volatile




agents from trees, flowers, grass, and weeds may be the




cause of allergic symptoms and may produce their effects in




any season.




        Horesh-'--'-^ found it impossible to prove whether




allergy is due to the odiferous substances from animal




dander or to some other volatile agent.  A certain number




of his patients insisted that they were not bothered by all




dogs but only those that "smell doggy-"  DeBesche5^ studied

-------
                                                          29
this subject by conducting experiments with the odorous




substance in horse urine.  He was able to produce asthmatic




attacks in patients allergic to horses with this odorous




substance under circumstances in which horse hair and horse




dandruff were carefully excluded.  DeBesche believed that




volatile allergens other than dander and hair were respon-




sible for some attacks of asthma suffered by persons




sensitive to horses or other animals.  He reported patients




with allergic symptoms caused by the odors from cattle, dogs,




cats, monkeys, sheep, goats, hares, rabbits, guinea pigs,




rats, mice, hens, bees, toads, and eels.  DeBesche accepted the




possibility that the dander of animals is the most important




carrier of the offending antigen, but believed that the odor




of animals is also an etiological factor.  Many persons with




asthma caused by sensitivity to horses, according to




DeBesche, have asserted that it is the odor of the horse




which is the crucial factor, and it was sufficient to come




into the presence of a person who "smells horsey" to provoke




an attack.




        HoreshH5 cautions that psychological factors can




incite allergic symptoms, but he believes that psychic




causes of allergic upsets should be accepted only after all




other factors have been considered and excluded.  Many

-------
                                                         30
so-called psychic causes for allergic upsets have vanished




when odorous substances have been carefully evaluated.




2.1.3  Theories of Olfaction




        Since 1870, about 30 theories have been proposed to




explain olfaction; an excellent summary up to 1967 has been




presented by Moncrieff.     These theories are summarized




in Table 18, Appendix B.  They are based on experimental




correlation of odor with such physical and chemical proper-




ties as ultraviolet absorption, infrared absorption, Raman




shifts, unsaturation, functional grouping, solubility in




lipid, solubility in water, volatility, adsorption,




oxidizability, and dipole moments.  The greatest contro-




versy is whether molecules of the odorant must come in con-




tact with the olfactory receptors or whether the odorants




emit waves which stimulate the receptors.^34  Thus, the




numerous theories can be grouped into wave theories and




contact theories.




        Wave Theories.  These theories are based on the fact




that olfaction can occur at a distance from the odorous




substance, and hence the molecules are assumed to emit




radiation which travels to the olfactory receptors.  These




theories contradict two well-established characteristics of




odor:  namely, that to be odorous a substance must be

-------
volatile and that odor cannot travel where air cannot.




        The theory of Beck and Miles178 deserves individual




mention because of its novelty.  Essentially this theory




proposed that the olfactory apparatus was a tiny infrared




spectrophotometer, emitting infrared radiation and measuring




its absorption by molecules near it.




        Roderick234  maintains that contact of the odorant




molecules with the olfactory receptors is definitely re-




quired/ and therefore, all of the no-contact or wave theories




may be rejected.  However, he cautions that investigations




should include the effects of radiation on the olfactory




apparatus, since rats can detect X-rays by means of the




olfactory apparatus. 2




        Contact Theories.  Contact theories assume contact




of odorant molecules with the olfactory receptors.




Roderick234 has divided these theories into two subgroups




based on whether the contacting molecule is thought to




stimulate the olfactory receptors by chemical or physical




means.  The theories involving chemical interaction are




mainly ones based on correlations with functional groups.




These chemical theories were popular from 1900 to 1920, the




period during which data on structure-odor were first being




collected.  But by 1930 there were sufficient data to

-------
                                                         32
establish that there is no simple relation of odor to




molecular structure.  Moncrieff190 and Dyson69 showed that




compounds of very similar structure may have different odors,




and compounds of very different structures may have similar




odors.  For example, the odor of macrocyclic compounds was




shown to depend more on ring size than on functional groups,




the odor of benzene derivatives depended more on the posi-




tion of substituents than on their nature, and similar




stereoisomers were found to have different odors.




        From 1950 on, the major theories proposed recognized




that the odor of a molecule could not be directly related to




its functional groups but must be related to the molecule as




a whole:  i.e., odor is a "whole-molecule" property .HO




Beets^ proposed in 1957 a profile-functional group theory




in which odor was determined by two factors:  the functional




group with the highest hydration tendency determines the




orientation of the molecule at the receptor, and the overall




form or profile of the molecule also has some effect, which




has not been specified.




        The two major theories based on odor as a whole-




molecule effect are discussed in Appendix C.  These are the




Dyson-Wright vibrational theory and the Moncrieff-Amoore




stereochemical theory-  These two theories appear to be the

-------
                                                          33
only significant theories today, and much of the current




literature on theories of olfaction consists of a duel




between them.234





2.2  Effects on Animals




2.2.1  Commercial and Domestic Animals




        No information on the effect of odor air pollution




on the health and behavior of commercial and domestic




animals was found in the literature reviewed.  However,




there is considerable attention given to the sensitivity of




the noses of mammals—particularly of dogs—169,190 ^y^




these studies do not relate to air pollution.




2.2.2  Experimental Animals




        No information was found on the effect of odor air




pollution on the health and behavior of experimental animals.




McCord and Witheridge170 point out that it is impossible to




determine whether certain odors are repulsive to rats.  The




investigators suggest that if left to their own devices,




rats might choose a dunghill in which to nest.




2.3  Effects on Plants




        Odors per se have no known effects on plants.  How-




ever, many odorous compounds such as sulfur dioxide, ethylene,




and ammonia are phytotoxic.  The effects on the plants are




due to toxicity rather than to odor.

-------
                                                         34
2.4  Effects on Materials

        Moles183 reported that obnoxious fishy odors emitted

from a soap plant adhered to skin, hair, clothing, auto-

mobiles, and other materials for extended periods of time.

People who had been in or near the plant could smell the

odors miles away for many hours.  Clothing required

laundering or dry cleaning to completely remove the odor.

2.5  Environmental Air Standards

        Stern^SO ^as listed air quality standards for

approximately 100 odorants.  Industrial standards for another

250 specific odorants have been listed by the American

Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.46  Air

quality standards for these odorous pollutants are based

on toxicity rather than odor of the pollutants, and have

not, therefore, been included in this report.

        Some State, county, and city regulations have tried

to limit odor pollution on the basis that air contaminants

unreasonably interfere with the comfortable  enjoyment of

life or property-  Those States which list odors specifically

as an air pollutant are the following:23'178

            Alaska                Florida
            Arizona                  Seminole County
            California               Manatee County
            Florida                  Hillsborough County
               Duval County          Orange  County
               Lake County

-------
                                                         35
            Hawaii                New Hampshire
            Iowa                  Ohio
            Kansas                Oregon
            Maine                 Rhode Island
            Maryland              Texas
            Massachusetts         Washington
            Michigan              Wisconsin
            Montana

        Some States, such as California, have been more

aggressive than others in their action to control emissions

of odorous compounds.  The following California standard39

for diesel odors and irritation exemplifies this fact:

        (a)  The average intensity of odor as determined by
subjective appraisal shall be less than the intensity from
diesel vehicles with horizontal exhaust pipes representative
of the diesels in use in 1966 and whose odorant concentra-
tions have been reduced by at least 80 percent.

        (b)  There shall be no detectable eye, nasal,  or
throat irritation to at least 75 percent of the panel.

        (c)  Exhaust odors that are different in quality
from characteristic diesel odor shall be less objectionable
to the panel than the odor from diesel vehicles with hori-
zontal exhaust pipes representative of the diesels in use in
1966 and whose odorant concentrations have been reduced by
at least 80 percent.

        (d)  The conditions for appraisal are:

             1.  The odor irritation panel shall consist of
                 not less than 10 persons.

             2.  Appraisal of odor and irritation shall be
                 made on a vertical plane ten feet distant
                 from the exhaust outlet to either side of
                 the motor vehicle parallel to the longi-
                 tudinal axis.  For vehicles with more  than
                 one exhaust outlet, the appraisal shall be
                 made on a vertical plane parallel to the

-------
                                                         36
                 longitudinal axis at a horizontal distance
                 ten feet from the midpoint of the exhaust
                 outlets.

             3.  The exhaust gas shall be evaluated during
                 the modes of idle and full throttle
                 acceleration.

             4.  Other methods  of odor appraisal  or measure-
                 ment may be used if approved by  the
                 Department of  Public Health.

        In addition, the Los Angeles County Air Pollution

Control District^! has several  rules which limit  the

emission of odorous compounds:

        Rule 51 limits discharge of any air contaminants
        which cause "injury, detriment, nuisance,  or
        annoyance."

        Rule 52 limits the discharge of particulate matter.

        Rule 53 limits the discharge of sulfur dioxide.

        Rules 56,59,63, and 65  limit the discharge of gaso-
        line, petroleum distillate, and petroleum products.

        Rule 58 provides for proper incineration.

        Rule 62 limits the discharge of hydrogen  sulfide
        from burning fuels.

        Rule 64 limits emissions from animal rendering
        plants.

        Rule 66 limits emissions from evaporating solvents
        and other organic liquids.

-------
3.   SOURCES

            The most frequently reported sources of obnoxious

    odors in the ambient air were listed in 1958 by Kerka and

    Kaiser.     These are tabulated in Table 19, Appendix E.

    In New York State, Hilleboe108 reported the number of odor

    sources along with other contaminants.  In cities with

    populations over 5,000, the number of nonindtstrial source~

    of odors (77) exceeded the industrial sources (26).  In

    smaller communities (less than 5,000) the number of non-

    industrial sources (17) was less than the number of indus-

    trial sources (23), as shown in Table 20, Appendix B.

            In 1955, the chief public officials responsible for
                                                              •-) -| 1
    control of air pollution in 67 major cities were surveyed,

    The results of the survey showed that 78 percent received

    complaints of odors separately from other air pollution

    complaints, and 68 percent felt the public interest v/as

    increasing because of odor pollution.  When esked to lis+~

    the source of the odors in their communities, their replies

    were as follows:

                Source                      Percent^

                Chemicals                      62
                Vehicles                       52
                Paint and varnish              49
            *Percent of questionnaires in which the source
   was  cited.

-------
                                                          38
             Food processing                47
             Domestic  (homes, etc.)         45
             Rendering plants               43
             Plastics                       33
             Oil refineries                 31
             Coke works                     31
             Rubber                         27
             Steel                          25
             Insulation                     21
             Fish                           21
             Gas works                      19
             Pharmaceuticals                19
             Soaps and detergents           17
             Breweries                      15

        The odor pollution of an area depends on the odor

strength and quality.  The odor unit has been defined thus:

one odor unit is the amount of odorant necessary to con-

taminate one cubic foot of clean air to the odor threshold.

For any one odorant, the number of odor units can be calcu-

lated by knowing the volume of odor released and the odor

threshold.  For example, dimethyl amine has an odor threshold of

approximately   0.5 ppm (1,000 |-ig/m3 ) -  A release of 10

pounds of this substance per hour would result in the release

of 2,800,000 odor units per minute.37  This number can then

be used in atmospheric diffusion equations to calculate the

distance the odor may travel.  Any value above one would be

detectable.  Similar calculations are also useful to

engineers in designing systems which will avoid or abate

odor pollution.  This method has been used by Benforado

et al.^ for the various applications shown in Table 21,

Append ix B.

-------
                                                         39
        The mixture of two or more odorants may present




complicating factors because the odorants may be additive,




synergistic, counteractant, or independent.




3.1  Natural Occurrence




        Odors are produced in nature primarily from the




decomposition of proteinaceous material (vegetable and




animal) by bacterial action.192'212  They develop principally




in stagnant and insufficiently aerated water—for example, in




swamps and polluted stagnant water. °''22  Odors from




these sources, variously described as fishy, aromatic,




grassy, and septic, have been reported most often after the



                                                     132 17 3
peak of the blue-gree algae concentration has passed.   '




Dimethyl sulfide and methyl mercaptan either together or




separately have been found among the volatile constituents


                                       1 qp

of certain green, brown, and red algae.     Methyl sulfide




has been found in marine algae; methyl mercaptan has been an




odorant of algae; and dimethyl sulfide has been found in




certain seaweeds.  Microscopic animals also produce odorous




compounds.  Collins and Gains47 reported that hydrogen




sulfide was one of the odorous constituents of actinomycetes.




As a result, the odors emanating from contaminated waters,




including the oceans, are usually offensive.  These odors may




often be accompanied with the offensive odors of dead fish

-------
                                                           40
found on the public beaches.  Such an incident occurred in


the Los Angeles area in 1964.  Ocean water temperatures


remained high (greater than 70°F) for several days, causing


the "red tide"  (plankton) to grow rapidly, thus creating a


condition lethal to fish.  Millions of fish washed onto the


beaches, producing a stench along several miles of public


beach.  As a result, no people visited the beach for several


weeks.


        Robinson and Robbins233 have estimated the annual


worldwide production of some odorants.  Hydrogen sulfide


production in the middle sixties was about 90 to 100 million


tons, with 60 to 80 million tons coming from land sources


and 30 million tons from ocean areas.  Other estimates of


these figures ranged as high as 202 million tons from ocean

                                          o q q
areas and 82 million tons from land areas. JJ  Data on back-


ground air concentrations of hydrogen sulfide arising from


natural sources are scarce.  However, concentrations,estimated


to be between 0.15 and 0.46 M-g/tn3/ are below the odor threshold,


or concentrations at which deleterious effects occur.   Ammonia


is also produced in large quantities by the biological pro-


cesses,233 mostly degradation of organic wastes.  Approxi-


mately 3.7 x 109 tons of ammonia are released into the


atmosphere annually.85  of this amount,  only 4.2 x 10s tons

-------
                                                         41
are emitted to the atmosphere as a result of industrial and




urban processes.




        Many kinds of fires—such as forest fires, brush




fires, and open field burning—also contribute odorants to




the environmental air.




        The human body is also a source of unpleasant odors.




Body odors have been studied extensively by the United States




Armed Forces.  ^  Some typical odorants collected on charcoal




during a 30-day human experiment are given in Table 22,




Append ix B.




3.2  Production Sources




        Odorants are produced as by-products (usually un-




wanted) in many industrial processes.  Odorants are emitted




during normal operations in the petroleum industry (re-




fineries and natural gas plants), petrochemical plant com-




plexes, chemical plants, coke-oven plants, kraft paper mills,




chemical processing industry, dye manufacture,  viscose rayon




manufacture, sulfur production, manufacture of sulfur-




containing chemicals, iron and metal smelters,  cement plants,




fertilizer plants, food processing plants, rendering plants,




and tanneries.




3.2.1  Petroleum Industry




        The stench of crude oil is evident near oil wells,

-------
                                                           42
petroleum refineries, and in recent months, the Santa




Barbara Beach in California (which was contaminated from




an offshore oil well leak).




        The main sources of odor pollution in refineries are




untreated gas stream leaks, vapors from crude oil and raw




distillates, and fumes from process and condensate sewers.




The odorous emissions may contain hydrogen sulfide, mercap-




tans,  phenolic compounds and naphthenic acids, organic




sulfides, organic amines, aldehydes, and aliphatic or




aromatic compounds.




        The Petroleum Committee for the Air Pollution Control




Association214 has listed the potential sources of odorous




compounds in a refinery as shown in Table 23, Appendix B.




        Typical refinery processing systems that produce




malodorous emissions are cracking units, catalytic reforming




units,177 and sulfur recovery units.291  The cracking process




tends to convert the sulfur contained in crude oil into hydro-




gen sulfide in the heavier materials and mercaptans in the




gasoline fractions.294  Measurements made in the El Paso,




Tex.,  area adjacent to an oil refinery showed the mean




hydrogen sulfide concentration to be 6 M-g/m3 .  The concentra-




tion varied from amounts too low to measure to a maximum of




91     3 5

-------
                                                         43
        The main source of ammonia in oil refineries is from




the catalyst regenerators in the catalytic cracking plants.




The ammonia releases from oil refineries range up to 54 pounds




per 100 barrels of feed.




        The ammonia emission from regenerator stacks in




catalytic cracking units of Los Angeles area refineries was




4.2 tons per day from fluid bed cracking units and 0.2 tons




per day from thermofor units.17  At the time the data were




compiled, there were 18 refineries in the Los Angeles area




with a combined capacity of 700,000 barrels of crude oil per




day-




        In 1960 there were approximately 300 refineries




distributed throughout the United States with a crude oil




capacity of approximately 10 million barrels per day.    By




1969 there were about 263 refineries in the United States




with a crude oil capacity of approximately 12 million barrels




per day-273  rp-^g grates in which the refineries are located




and their crude charge capacity in January 1969 are shown in




Table 24, Appendix B.  The crude capacity of refineries in




the United States increased about 10 percent in the three




years 1967 to 1969, and it is projected to increase another




10 percent in the next three years (1970 to 1972).205

-------
                                                         44
        The 14 oil refineries in Oklahoma were reported to




cause air pollution problems of smoke, soot, and odors in 11




communities.170





        Kropp and Simonsen150 have reported odorous problems




arising from fatty acids during grease-making processes, from




vapor in asphalt production, and from sulfur oxides in acid




treatment of lubricating oil.  Mel'ster176 also reported odor




problems arising from asphalt production.




        A common method of control of odorous emissions from




petroleum plants is combustion of the waste gas.  The combus-




tion process oxidizes malodorous sulfides and amines to sulfur




oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are also odorants but have




a higher threshold odor concentration.  Incomplete combustion




results in odorous aldehydes.




        A number of refineries and natural gas plants have




installed units to recover sulfur from hydrogen sulfide.




Sulfur plant installed capacities and yearly production rates




are shown in Table 25, Appendix B.




        Malodorous hydrogen sulfide occurs naturally in many




areas associated with natural gas.212  In some areas—for




instance, Alberta, Canada—the sour natural gas can consist




of over 50 percent hydrogen sulfide.  The natural gas stream




is treated to remove the hydrogen sulfide, which is generally

-------
                                                         45
converted to sulfur.  Distributing companies which sell




natural gas for heating and power generation generally re-




quire that its hydrogen sulfide content be less than 23,000




Hg/m3.249




3.2.2  Petrochemical Plant Complexes




        Malodorous gases are produced in petrochemical plants




during cracking and other desulfurization reactions.1''




Krasovitskaya et al. ^-^" reported on atmospheric hydrogen




sulfide concentrations around a petrochemical industrial




complex in Russia.  The complex consisted of three oil




refineries, a synthetic alcohol plant, a chemical plant, and




three power plants.  Measurements in the industrial complex




showed a concentration of 17 to 150 |ag/m3 of hydrogen sulfide;




2.5 km from the complex it was 8 to 70 M.g/m3 ; and 20 km from




the complex it was 1 to 50 p.g/m .




3.2.3  Chemical Industry




        Odorous compounds are products of many chemical




operations.  In general, they are formed when nitrogen or




sulfur compounds are associated with organic materials at




high temperatures.  In many operations the end products have




a highly offensive odor (e.g., carbon disulfide, pyridine,




and thiophene)-




        Sources of malodorants in the chemical industry are




the manufacture of sulfur dyes165 and the production of

-------
                                                          46






viscose rayon, neoprene,139 ethyl and methyl parathion




(pesticides),269 organic thiophosphate,175 ammonia, aldehydes,




and many other organic chemicals.  Approximately 6 tons of




hydrogen sulfide are formed for  every 100 tons of viscose



               192
rayon produced.     Inorganic processes which evolve mal-




odorous compounds include the manufacture of barium




chloride (from barium sulfide),  phosphorus compounds, pig-




ments, lithopone, and sodium sulfide.  Hydrogen sulfide is




emitted during the manufacture of stove clay and glass.   '




        An odor problem in a soap plant was reported by




Molos.-*-^3  Amine-like (fishy) odors were produced in unknown




areas in the plant.  These obnoxious odors resulted in fre-




quent complaints from plant neighbors and were often detect-




able 5 to 6 miles from the plant.  Although the actual source




within the plant was never located, continued public pressure,




picketing, and two public hearings forced the company to




install odor controls on storage tanks, and a centrifuging




operation, and to revise the exhaust system, including the




spray tower dryer.




        Byrd et al. ' reported an odor problem involving




dimethylamine in a synthetic detergent plant.  No quantita-




tive data were given.

-------
                                                       47
3.2.4  Pulp and Paper Mills
       Hydrogen sulfide, mercaptans, organic sulfides, and
organic disulfides are produced and released into the atmos-
phere in a number of processes in kraft pulp mills.  Emission
of such substances as these imparts the characteristic "rotten
cabbage" or "rotten egg" odor in the vicinity of kraft paper
mills and has been the cause of major air pollution problems.
Over 50 percent of the pulp produced in the United States
comes from the kraft or sulfate process.-^^  Robinson and
Robbins233 estimated that in I960, hydrogen sulfide emission
from kraft paper mills throughout the world was about 64,000
tons.
       In the kraft process, wood chips and a solution of
sodium sulfide and sodium hydroxide (white liquor) are cooked
in a digester for about 3 hours at elevated temperatures and
pressures.  The solution dissolves the liquor from the wood.
The spent liquor  (black liquor) is then separated from the
cellulose fiber in the blow tank, after which the fiber is
washed and processed into paper.  The remainder of the pro-
cess involves the recovery and regeneration of the cooking
chemicals from the black liquor.  The recovery process is
initiated by concentrating the black liquor by evaporation.
When the concentrated black liquor is burned in the recovery
furnace, the inorganic chemicals collect on the floor of the
furnace in a molten state (smelt).

-------
                                                         48
        Hot combustion gases from the recovery furnace are




used in the direct contact evaporation to concentrate the




black liquor.  The smelt is removed from the recovery furnace,




dissolved in the dissolving tank (where calcium hydroxide is




added to convert the smelt from sodium carbonate to calcium




hydroxide), and pumped to the causticizer, where the sodium




carbonate is converted to sodium hydroxide by calcium




hydroxide.  The effluent liquor (white liquor) is used as




feed to the digester.  The precipitated calcium carbonate is




then heated in a kiln to convert it to calcium oxide.  The




oxide is then slaked to calcium hydroxide for reuse in the




causticizer.141'260



        The major sources of odorant emission in kraft mills




are the stack gases from the recovery furnace, including the




direct contact evaporator; the stack gases from the lime




kilns; and the noncondensibles from the digester relief, the




blow tank, and the multieffect evaporator.2^'268  The concen-




tration of odorous emissions from each source is given in



                                            242
Table 26, Appendix B.  According to Sableski    investigations




at the University of California have shown that 80 percent of




the total gaseous sulfur appears as hydrogen sulfide and




methyl mercaptan.  The amount of these emissions that




actually reaches the environment depends upon the efficiency




of each of the abatement systems that are installed and

-------
                                                         49
operating at each mill.  Table 27, Appendix B, shows the




emissions from a kraft mill in Lewiston, Idaho.  The mill




produces 450 tons per day of bleached paper board and 200




tons per day of market pulp.268




        The single largest source of odorants in a kraft mill




is the recovery furnace, and the amount of odor produced




depends upon furnace loading.  The hydrogen sulfide produced




in the furnace rises very rapidly when the furnace is opera-




ted above design conditions.




        During a 6-month period in 1961 and 1962, surveys




were made of ambient odors in the Lewiston-Clarkston area,




where the paper mill is the major contributor of gaseous




pollutants. 2  The results are shown in Tables 28-29,




Appendix B.  During an incident in November 1961, peak 2-hour




concentrations of 77 M-g/m3 of hydrogen sulfide were measured.




        In 1957, about 12.8 million tons of pulp were made




by the kraft process; the location of these kraft mills is




shown in Figure 2, Appendix A.  The United States production




of pulp by the kraft process from the year 1957 to 1967 is




shown in Table 30, Appendix B.




        Sableski242 reported in 1967 on government-funded




research on kraft mill pollution.   Research at the University




of California has shown that pulping hardwoods produces more

-------
                                                       50
methyl inercaptan and dimethyl sulfide than pulping soft woods



and that methyl mercaptan is a primary product of pulp diges-



tion.  The mercaptan is partly consumed in the formation of



dimethyl sulfide.  At that time, the University of Washington



was studying the kinetics of odor formation in the kraft



process.  A joint report from the Universities of Washington



and Maine concluded thus:




        (1)  Although cooking soft woods at elevated tempera-



tures for a short period of time reduces the amount of



dimethyl sulfide formed as compared to cooking at lower



temperatures for a longer period of time, it does not appre-



ciably reduce the amount of the more obnoxious methyl mer-



captan formed.  Furthermore, any inadvertent lengthening of



pulping times increases odors.




        (2)  The higher the sulfidity of the cooking liquors,



the larger the amount of odorous compounds formed.  Sulfidity



should, therefore, be kept at the minimum practical for



effective pulping.




        (3)  Recycling black liquor to the digester results



in increased odor production, and this practice should be



minimized.




        (4)  During the blow, the pH of the cooking liquor



should not be allowed to drop below 12 in order to retain



mercaptans and to reduce, by as much as 90 percent, hydrogen



sulfide losses.

-------
                                                         51
3.2.5  Coke Ovens and Coal




        In 1966 about 66 million tons of coke, valued at




$1,144,000 were produced per year in the United States




in 66 coke oven plants.




        Malodorants are produced in the coking operation.




The effluent gas from coke ovens contains about 5,000 to




13,000 M-g/m3 of hydrogen sulfide (or about 6.7 pounds per




ton of coal charged).145  During cooling and scrubbing,




approximately 50 percent of the hydrogen sulfide is removed.




The remaining gas is either used as is for firing the coke




ovens, purified further (partially desulfurized) and used




for firing of coke ovens, or completely desulfurized and




used for municipal gas.




        Odorous emissions can occur throughout the complete




coking cycle from coke-oven charging to hydrogen sulfide




removal (desulfurization)-231  The sources of these emissions




other than charging and discharging emissions, and their




causes are shown in Table 31, Appendix B.  No data were found




on the magnitude of odorant concentrations in the atmosphere




in or around coke ovens.  However,  it is often of sufficient




magnitude to create problems or evoke complaints from nearby




residents.




        Coal refuse piles have been burning and causing odor




pollution since coal mining first started.274  Approximately

-------
20 to 50 percent of the raw anthracite processed in cleaning




plants is rejected as refuse.  At many operations the refuse




discarded amounts to about 33 percent of the tonnage produced.




This refuse over the years has accumulated in coal refuse




piles, some of which contain millions of tons.260  The piles




ignite either through spontaneous combustion, carelessness,




or deliberate action.  A recent survey indicated that there




are approximately 500 burning piles in 15 States.260  The




odorants generated during combustion emanate from the piles




and disperse into the atmosphere.  Significant concentrations




of hydrogen sulfide gas have been measured in communities




adjacent to burning piles.  Sussman274 reported that hydrogen




sulfide measurements made in July 1960 adjacent to a large




burning anthracite refuse pile showed an hourly maximum




average of 600 |ag/m3 .  The minimum hourly average was




140 Ug/m3.




3.2.6  Iron-Steel Industry and Foundries




        Malodorants are given off in many metallurgical




processes.248  Wohlbier and Rengstorff303 showed by experi-




ments that the amount of hydrogen sulfide formed in slag




granulation is proportional to the amount of hydrogen formed




during the quenching process.  Typical hydrogen sulfide




exhaust emissions from foundries range from 4 to 100 pounds




per 500 tons of  castings produced per  day.

-------
                                                         53
3.2.7  Food Processing




        Odors from food processing evoke frequent complaints.




Food processing includes operations such as slaughtering,




smoking, drying, cooking, baking, frying, boiling, dehy-




drating, hydrogenating, fermenting, distilling, curing,




ripening, roasting, broiling, barbecuing, canning, freezing,




enriching, and packaging.  Some of these processes produce




very obnoxious odors, while others produce quite pleasant




odors.  Because of the odor problems associated with meat




processing, it is discussed separately.




        McHard and Wromble171 reported in 1965 that 538




manufacturing establishments in Oklahoma were processing




food and related products.  Odors from these processes and




septic sewage resulting from plant operations caused the




chief air pollution problems.




        In South Dakota, 24 of 32 air pollution appraisal




questionnaires mentioned food processing odors as sources of




air pollution.  Complaints included odors from milk and




cheese processing, livestock pens, alfalfa dehydration, and




grain elevators.41




        Coffee processing produces four types of emissions:




dust, chaff, odor, and smoke.  The odor and smoke are combi-




nations of organic constituents volatilized at roasting

-------
                                                         54







temperatures.  Coffee roasting odors are attributed to




alcohols, aldehydes, organic acids, and nitrogen and sulfur




compounds.  During decaffeination, odors can be traced to




trichloroethylene, the  solvent used in extracting caffeine




from the green coffee beans.  The odor-laden smoke presents




the most difficult problem in emission control.210




3.2.8  Meat Industry




3.2.8.1  Feedlots




        The keeping of  cattle, sheep, hogs, and poultry in




feedlots often produces a noxious odor problem.  Feeding on




farms may produce odor  problems, but the number of people




affected is relatively  small.  Commercial feeding produces




odors on a much larger  scale, since a community may surround




the feedlots.




        According to Faith?8'260 10 million cattle are on




feed in the United States.  Commercial feedlots may contain




3,200 to 32,000 head during peak seasons.  These cattle are




normally kept on feed for 150 days, during which each animal




eats 25 pounds of balanced ration every day.  The animal will




gain about 1 pound for  each 8 to 10 pounds of feed.  A 1,000-




pound animal will produce approximately 26 pounds of total




excreta per day, 15 pounds of which is urine.  Thus a large




potential for odor pollution exists where many animals are




kept.

-------
                                                          55



                                          o f f~i
        Odor problems develop in two ways.     One is the


typical range odor of fresh excreta.  The odor is rapidly


dissipated as the excrement cools.  This odor is not


particularly offensive.  If the manure remains wet, a second


and more offensive odor develops as the bacteria multiply


rapidly and putrefaction begins.  Such highly odorous sub-


stances are produced as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and


organic amines.  These odors may be confined in manure piles


where a crust has formed and will not be released until the


crust is broken, usually during manure removal.


        Similar problems arise in feedlots for hogs, sheep,


and poultry (usually in egg production).  In one instance,


the urine and droppings were collected underneath the


slotted floor of a pigsty, and the manure was agitated prior


to removal.  This agitation allowed malodorous gases to


escape, and within an hour all the pigs lay dead in their


pens.53


        The physical conditions which cause odor problems in


feedlots have been listed by Moorman    as these:


        (1)  Poor drainage allowing water or wet manure to


stand for long periods of time.


        (2)  Spilled feed from feed trucks or around feed


mills .

-------
                                                         56








        (3)  Improper carcass disposal.




        (4)  Accumulation of manure in feeding pens.




        (5)  Improper management of manure disposal operations




3.2.8.2  Livestock Slaughtering




        Slaughtering operations have traditionally been




associated with odorous air contaminants, though many




odorants are due to by-product operations rather than to




slaughtering and meat dressing itself.  Slaughtering is




considered to include only the killing of the animal and the




separation of the carcass into edible meat and inedible by-




products .




        Cattle-, sheep-, and hog-killing operations are




necessarily more extensive than those concerned with poultry,-




though poultry houses usually handle appreciably larger




numbers of animals.




        In the slaughtering operation, the animal is stunned,




bled, skinned, eviscerated, and trimmed.  Blood is drained




and collected in a holding tank.  Entrails are removed,




sliced in a "gut hasher," and washed to separate the




partially digested food, termed "paunch manure."  Many





slaughterers have heated reduction facilities in which blood,




intestines, bones, and other inedible materials are processed




to recover tallow, fertilizer, and animal feeds.  Other




slaughterers usually sell their offal to scavenger plants that

-------
                                                          57
deal exclusively in by-products.  Hides are almost always




shipped to leather-processing firms.  Dressed beef, normally




about 56 percent of the live weight, is refrigerated before




it is shipped.




        Odors emitted from slaughtering operations can be




differentiated as  (1) those released from the animal upon




killing and cutting, and upon exposure of blood and flesh to




air; and (2) those resulting from the decay of animal matter




spilled on exposed surfaces or otherwise exposed to the




atmosphere.  Odors from the first source are not appreciable




when healthy livestock are used.  Where nuisance-causing




odors are encountered from slaughtering, they are almost




always attributable to inadequate sanitary measures.  These




odors probably result from breakdown of proteins.  Amines




and sulfur compounds are considered to be the most disagree-




ably odorous breakdown products.




        In addition to these sources, odors arise from




slaughterhouse stockyards and from the storage of blood,




intestines, hides, and paunch manure before their shipping




or further processing. ^




3.2.8.3  Inedible Rendering of Animal Matter




        Animal matter not suitable as food for either humans




or pets is nevertheless converted into salable products by

-------
                                                         58
rendering.  Animal rendering plants are the principal outlets




for disposal of wastes from slaughterers, butchers, poultry




dressers, and other processors of flesh foods.  In addition,




rendering plants dispose of whole animals (such as cows,




horses, sheep, poultry, dogs, and cats) that have died from




natural or accidental causes.  The principal products of the




reduction processes are proteinaceous meals, which find




primary use as poultry and livestock feeds,  and tallow.




        In the normal reduction process, the raw animal




materials are picked up from individual sources and trucked




to the rendering plant, usually in open-bodied trucks with




canvas covers.  The raw material is dumped into a receiving




bin, from which it is conveyed to a grinder (breaker) where




the meat and bones are ground (hashed), and  then conveyed to




the cooker.  The cooker is either a steam-jacketed vessel




(dry-rendering process) or live-steam-heated vessel (wet-




rendering process).  The cooker may handle from 6,000 to




12,000 pounds of raw material in batch processes, and some




may handle as much as 40,000 pounds.  More recently built




plants use a continuous process.  Temperatures of 300°F are




required to digest bones, hooves, hides, and hair.  Process




times range from 1 to 4 hours.  Most of the moisture is




evaporated and exhausted from the cooker.  This exhaust steam

-------
                                                         59
contains extremely odorous gases.  Tallow is drained and

pressed from the cooked meal.  The tallow is then filtered

and further dehydrated by centrifuging, settling, or air
        9 no
blowing. yo

        Some materials, such as blood and feathers, that do

not contain tallow are also digested and dehydrated in dry-

rendering cookers.

        Malodors are the principal complaint around render-

ing plants.  These odors arise mainly from the raw materials

(especially during the grinding operation), cooker

                             277
drier, percolator, and press.     Many factors may signifi-
                                                         1 O £*.
cantly influence the offensiveness and quantity of odors:

        (1)  The age and condition of raw material.

        (2)  Overcooking.

        (3)  Overheating the drier.

        (4)  Excess air flow through the drier.

        (5)  Inadequate control equipment.

        (6)  Overtaxing the capacity of condensers and
scrubbers.

        (7)  Improper disposal and inadequate treatment of
liquid wastes.

        (8)  Insufficient temperature or residence time in
incinerator.

        (9)  Poor housekeeping.

-------
                                                          60
       (10)  Failure to collect all emissions for deodori-

zation before release to the atmosphere.



              272
        Summer    stresses that once the carcass is fly-




blown and maggot-infested, the obnoxious trimethylamine is




produced rapidly.  Chemicals which are responsible for the




offensive odors have been reported by Strauss ^ and


      9 o r
Ronald ^ as ammonia, monoethylatnine, diethylamine,




triethylamine, hydrogen sulfide, and in lesser quantities




skatole, other amines, sulfides, and mercaptans.  Aldehydes




and organic acids are derived from fats.  Putrescine,




NH2(CHS)4NHS, and cadaverine, NH2(CHS)5NH2, are two extremely




offensive odorants associated with decaying flesh.




        The odor concentration and production rate have been




measured in rendering plants.  These data are shown in



                                   17 9
Table 32, Appendix B.  Mills et al.    have estimated the




odor emissions in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area for 1966




from rendering refuse from beef cattle.  The average cattle




kill was 28,000 per week.  He assumed that 15 percent offal




and 5.5 percent raw blood were derived from an average




1,000-pound steer.  He calculated that rendering plants




would produce 3.15 x 1011 odor units per day from offal and




5.24 x 1011 odor units per day from blood.  The figures show




that the 26 percent of blood of the total rendered material

-------
                                                          61
produced 62 percent of total quantity of odorants.  The total




quantity of odorants was 8.39 x 1011 odor units per day.  He




points out that he did not include swine, sheep, poultry, or




horses in his calculations, and also that the odor emissions




would have been considerably higher if the offal and blood




had been allowed to putrefy-




        Mills et al.    have also reported that most odor




emissions take place during the first hour of cooking in the




batch process.  Their results are summarized in Figure 3,




Appendix A.  However, the emission rate depends largely on




the operating mode.  The above data are for a system operat-




ing at ambient pressure.  In a system operating under vacuum




or pressure, the odor would be emitted faster or slower




depending on the mode.  On the other hand, a continuous




system would have a continuous emission of odors.




3.2.8.4  Fish Processing




        In the fishing industry, odors are unavoidable




because of the nature of the species.  Objectionable odors




can be detected in fishing wharfs, canneries, and reduction




plants.  Heavy odor emissions that cause nuisance complaints




can usually be traced to poor sanitation.  Trimethylamine is




the principal compound identified with fish odors.

-------
                                                         62
        Reduction of inedible wastes from fish to fish meal



is carried out in about the same manner as the animal



rendering process described above.  This reduction process



is capable of producing large quantities of odorants.



Mills et al.    have reported some typical odor emissions,



which are presented in Table 33, Appendix B.



3.2.8.5  Edible Meats



        Odors are also emitted from edible meat processing.



However, compared to emissions from inedible-rendering



processes, the odors from edible-rendering processes are



relatively minor.  In the Los Angeles area, only 10 percent



of the total animal material rendered is from edible meat,



and the rates of odor emissions are low.  The concentration



in the exhaust gas is only about 3,000 odor units per scf.*



The main reason for this is that edible materials are kept



scrupulously clean.



3.2.8.6  Tanneries


                                                           279
        Offensive odors often arise from tanneries.  Summer



states that the main cause of these odors stems from skins


                                                   O C ~|
which have become infested with maggots.  Sinitsyna D  claims



that the air of tanneries becomes polluted with ammonia.
        *scf-standard cubic foot.

-------
                                                         63
3.2.9  Miscellaneous Production Sources




        There are many other production sources of odors




which may cause complaints.  Some of these include the




paint industry,51 varnish kettle cookers,51 wire reclama-




tion, 1 electroplating,    cement production,1^ cotton




ginning, ° and breweries.143





3 . 3  Product Sources




        Odorous product  sources fall into four categories:




perfumes and cosmetics,  masking agents, counteracting agents,




and warning agents.  All of these products are purposely




emitted into the air.  Complaints have arisen only when the




product is improperly used.  Examples of improper use of




masking agents and counteractants have been discussed in the




previous section.  Warning agents consist of small quantities




of malodorous gases added to nonodorous lethal gases to warn




people of gas leaks.




3.4  Other Sources




3.4.1  Combustion Processes




        Odorants are released when wood, coal, oil, or gas




are burned.272  The quantity of odorant will depend upon the




amount of sulfur in the  fuel and the efficiency of the combus-




tion process.  In an efficient combustion system the hydro-




carbons, sulfur, and nitrogen compounds will be oxidized to

-------
                                                          64
carbon dioxide, water,- sulfur dioxide, and nitric oxide.




However, if the combustion is incomplete, malodorants such



                                               979
as hydrogen sulfide and aldehydes are released.     In



studies8'238'253 of sulfur released from domestic boilers,




hydrogen sulfide was found to be given off during heavy




smoke emission, mainly just after refueling.



                299
        Williams    points out that the most frequent cause




of odorant production in fuel-burning operations is in-




complete combustion.  This also produces smoke, and thus




smoke and odors are often associated.




        The tepee burner73 is another source of odor com-




plaints.  Incineration of plastic products, garbage, and




rubber products is accompanied by extensive and often




nauseating odors.




        Refuse burning is reported to be a common cause of




odor complaints, both from open burning in garbage dumps and




incineration.171  Odors emitted from the incineration of




refuse collected overnight in an apartment house were



                         1 3fi
measured by Kaiser et al.     Their observations (tabulated




in Table 34, Appendix B) showed emission concentrations of




2.5 to 100 odor units per cubic foot and emission rates of




4,900 to 145,000 odor units per minute.




        Gasoline and automobile exhaust are frequent sources

-------
                                                         65
of odor complaints.  Automobile exhaust odorants are not as




offensive as diesel exhaust odors.  Therefore, they have not




been studied to the same extent as diesel odors.  There are




numerous studies on the emission of several individual




odorants, such as aldehydes, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen




oxides, but no studies were found on odors per se.




3.4.1.1  Diesel Engine Odors




        Exhaust constituents and odors have been related to




aldehyde concentrations in diesel exhaust because aldehydes




have a characteristic odor and cause irritation in exceed-




ingly low concentrations.  Table 35, Appendix B, shows the



approximate relationships of total aldehyde concentrations




to odor intensities of diesel exhaust as estimated from the



                                  79
                                    '
results of three separate studies.




        Although each investigative group found a definite




relationship of aldehydes to odor,- the relationships differed




somewhat.  Much of the difference is due to the subjective




evaluation methods and to the analytical procedures.  In




addition, the quality of odor may change with different fuels,



                                         227
engines, load and rpm, and other factors.




        Rounds and Pearsall2^9 tested correlations of odors




from diesel engines with formaldehyde, higher aldehydes, and




oxides of nitrogen, as well as with total aldehydes.  They

-------
                                                          66
found that formaldehyde and oxides of nitrogen did not




correlate as well with odor as did total aldehydes.  They




concluded, "The concentrations of the exhaust gas consti-




tuents measured in the present study cannot be used to pre-




dict reliably the changes in odor or irritation intensity




which would accompany changes in factors such as engine




operating conditions, the engine design, the fuel, or the




lubricant.  Further, the data suggest either that consti-




tuents other than those measured are contributing signifi-




cantly to odor and irritation or that the chemical methods




used are not measuring accurately the constituents they are




intended to measure."




        The concentrations of acrolein, formaldehyde, and




total aldehydes appear to be about the same from gasoline




engines as from diesels,73'119/121'156'239 thus indicating




that other compounds must contribute to odor and irritation




from diesels.  Objectionable diesel odors have occurred at




a time when aldehydes were present in the air only at



                             7 9
extremely low concentrations.




        In another study, 156 ^Ine concentrations of nitrogen




dioxide, formaldehyde, acrolein, and hydrocarbons in the




diesel exhaust gases were compared with the odor threshold




concentrations.  The concentrations of nitrogen dioxide,

-------
                                                         67
hydrocarbons, acrolein, and formaldehyde present in the




diesel exhaust at the threshold dilution (Table 36, Appen-




dix B) show that (1) under the 1,600 rpm*/  full-load




condition, the average concentration of nitrogen dioxide




present in the threshold dilution of diesel exhaust is 38




percent of the average threshold for pure nitrogen dioxide;




(2) under the 500 rpm, no-load condition, the average con-




centration of nitrogen dioxide present in the threshold




dilution of diesel exhaust is 51 percent of the average




threshold for pure nitrogen dioxide; (3) for both types of




exhaust, the average concentration of acrolein and formal-




dehyde present at the threshold dilution of the exhaust is




only one-tenth to one-hundredth of the thresholds for the




pure compounds; and (4) the average concentration of hydro-




carbons at the threshold dilution of 500 rpm, no-load diesel




exhaust is larger than for the 1,600 rpm, full-load exhaust.




Tentative conclusions were as follows:




        (1)  At the odor threshold dilution of diesel




exhaust, acrolein and formaldehyde were present in such




small concentrations,  in relation to the threshold concen-




tration for the pure compounds, that it is  unlikely that
        *rpm:  revolutions per minute,

-------
                                                         68
they were major factors in the odor of diesel exhaust.




        (2)  Under load conditions, the amount of nitrogen




dioxide present in the odor threshold dilution of diesel




exhaust was large enough, in relation to the odor threshold




for pure nitrogen dioxide, that nitrogen dioxide was more




likely to be a major factor in the odor detectability of




diesel exhaust than were acrolein and formaldehyde.  The




data in Table 37, Appendix B, support this conclusion.




        (3)  At ideal conditions, hydrocarbons, as measured




by infrared carbon and hydrogen absorption, were present in




such large concentrations in relation to nitrogen dioxide,




acrolein, and formaldehyde, that the unburned diesel fuel




was a likely suspect as the major factor in the odor of




diesel exhaust produced under these conditions.  The data




in Table 38, Appendix B, support this conclusion.




        A number of investigators have suggested that smoke




or particulate matter also contributes to odor.82'155'157'239




In one study, removal of smoke by filtration greatly reduced




odor intensity, although electrostatic precipitation was




ineffective in doing so.239  In another study, particulate




matter collected on glass fiber filters was extracted with




benzene, and upon evaporation of the benzene, an oily




yellow residue with a "heavy diesel odor" remained.

-------
                                                         69
        Reckner et. al.227 observed that nearly all of the




odor was removed from diesel exhaust when the gas was




bubbled through a 5 percent aqueous sodium bicarbonate




solution.




        There is considerable evidence that the most pro-




nounced and objectionable odors and the highest aldehyde




concentrations in diesel exhausts occur at conditions of




no load, idle, and deceleration or acceleration after




idle.27'72'297  These odors have been described as very




pungent, sharp, acrid, and objectionable.  Under load




conditions, odors were strong and heavy but not particu-




larly objectionable.297  Berger and Artz27 reported only




faint odor when a diesel mine locomotive (GM 6-71) was




operating upgrade under load.  When the locomotive was




descending the grade, considerable odor and eye irritation




were evident.  The high aldehyde and odor intensity may be




caused by chilling of the combustion chamber and substances




reacting with the great excess of air under no-load condi-




tions.27'72'232




        However, Rounds and Pearsail239 found much higher




concentrations of aldehydes at full load than at no load




with a two-cycle engine.  Concentrations were lowest at

-------
                                                         70
intermediate loads.  The data indicated that diesel exhaust




gas was most odorous and irritating at either no load or at




full load.  At intermediate loads the intensities were less,




although this effect was not as pronounced with odors as




with irritation.  The effect of engine rpm was small com-




pared to that of load.




        Rounds and Pearsall239 also compared the odor inten-




sities produced by three different engine makes, a two-




cycle and two four-cycle engines.  They found that at inter-




mediate loads, the odor intensities from all three engines




were practically the same.  At full load, one of the four-




cycle engines had less odor than the other two, which had




about the same odor intensities.  At no load the other four-_




cycle engine had the least odor.




        Another factor which influenced the odor production




of diesel engines was the mechanical condition of the engine.




Rounds and PearsalI239 found that an engine in poor mechan-




ical condition except for the fuel injection system produced




slightly higher odor intensities, but only when partially




loaded.  The engine tested produced excessive smoke, which




indicates that odor and smoke are not necessarily related.




Roberts232 indicates that leaking valves can reduce the




temperature of the combustion chamber and increase smoke and

-------
                                                         71
odors.  Leaking injectors or maladjusted governors increase




aldehyde concentrations and probably also affect odor



.  .    ..    111,239,297
intensity.




        There are conflicting reports on the effects of fuel




on odor.  Reckner et al.227 an$ Young309 believe that a fuel




produces two separate effects:  odor and lacrimation.




Furthermore, light diesel fuels, such as kerosenes, are




satisfactory with respect to odor (and smoke), but the




lacrimation effect may be greater than for fuels with



higher boiling points.  Reckner et al. ^' suggest that the




differences they observed in odors of two unburned diesel




fuels and the exhausts from burning these fuels might be


                                                 QO

explained by their differing volatility.  Grunder^0 stated




that city-type buses using kerosene-like fuel had a




characteristic odor which is pungent, sometimes irritating




to the eyes, and objectionable in heavy traffic to many




people.  He also stated that these buses introduced a




distinctly different odor easily distinguishable from the




odor from gasoline engines or four-cycle diesel engines




operating on regular grade diesel fuel.  According to




Rounds and Pearsall,239 the odor (and irritation) from a




low endpoint fuel was only slightly more than from a high

-------
                                                         72
endpoint fuel (the cetane number and initial boiling points


of the fuels were about the same).  Roberts232 thought that


the highly volatile fractions in the diesel oil were prone


to cause partially oxidized fuel in the exhaust gases.


        A number of investigators have found that cetane


number influences aldehyde concentrations and odor only


during no-load conditions and immediately after:  the lower


the cetane number, the higher the aldehyde concentra*"


tion.72'239'297'309  With respect to odor, Wetmiller and


Endsley297 state that offensive odor depends only on cetane


number.  Young309 says that cetane number has some bearing


on odor; and Rounds and Pearsall239 state that  it has but a


slight effect.  Sinks252 reported that no marked change in


odor resulted from varying the volatility and cetane number


of the fuel over a wide range.  Additives or impurities may


also affect the odor of diesel exhaust gases.  Young states


that the addition of amyl nitrate tends to improve exhaust


odor by increasing cetane number, but may slightly increase


the tendency for the eyes to water-309  There is good evi-


dence that high sulfur content fuels increase odor and


irritation.239'267


        Studies show that the oil type has no effect on

                                            O O fTi O C O
odor intensity but does affect odor quality.    '     It was

-------
                                                         73
found that in all conditions, a polyalkane glycol oil pro-


duced more offensive exhaust odors than a mineral oil.  At


low speeds and loads, a diester oil gave a less offensive


smelling exhaust gas than did the mineral oil, whereas at


high speeds and loads the opposite was true.


        The National Air Pollution Control Administration is


presently funding diesel odor studies at the U.S. Bureau of


Mines at Bartlesville, Okla.; the Southwest Research Insti-


tute at San Antonio, Tex.; and the A.D. Little Laboratory


in cooperation with Illinois Institute of Technology.


3.4.1.2  Aircraft Odors


        Lozano et al. •*•-*" have reported the odor dilution


threshold concentrations for jet aircraft.  These data are


summarized in Table 39, Appendix B.  The authors point out


that the odor dilution threshold concentration is highest


for fan-jet engines at idle, and this concentration  (1,000


odor units per scf) is approximately three times higher


than diesel engine exhaust at idle.  Conventional jets and


turbojets were 10 to 100 times lower at idle than in the


cruise and take-off mode.


        A 10-day odor survey was conducted near the John F.

                                         o r\-\
Kennedy International Airport in New York    in 1964


(October 5th through 9th and October 19th through 23rd) to

-------
                                                         74
determine the major types of odors in the area, particularly




those that can be attributed to jet aircraft exhaust.  An




untrained corps of odor observers was used, consisting of




about 100 seventh- and eighth-grade science students




residing in the study area.  The students were tested for




sensitivity by means of the  "triangle" test, using odorant




solutions of vanillin, methyl salicylate, and butyric acid.




All students tested were found acceptable as observers.




Students were instructed in the manner of making odor




observations, and observations were made three times daily




at 7 a.m. , 4 p.m./ and 8 p.m.  Observers noted the strength




of the odor, if observed, and described the odor in their




own words on a data form provided.  The data subsequently




were punched onto cards and analyzed by use of a card




sorter.




        The number, type, and location of odor observations




made are given in Table 40, Appendix B.  All communities




surveyed are within 3 miles of the airport.  The greatest




percentage of positive odor responses occurred in the




Rosedale area (Zone 3), followed by South Ozone Park (Zone




4).  No odors were described by the students as jet exhaust




smoke or odor.  To determine whether odors described as




"gasoline and diesel engine exhaust" or "oily or fuel odor"

-------
                                                         75
could have possibly originated at the airport, these obser-



vations were compared with wind direction.  Six of these



observations were made at a time when odor originating at



the airport could have been carried by wind to the observer,


and 20 of these observations were made when odors from the



airport were being carried away from the observer.  These



data indicated that gasoline and diesel exhaust and oily


or fuel odors were not specifically related to jet aircraft



emissions in this instance, and that sources other than the


airport were the main contributors.


        The possibility that emissions from jet aircraft do



create an odor problem should not be ruled out.  Odors from


these sources may be apparent during other seasons of the



year or during more adverse meteorological conditions.



3.4.2  Sewage


        Complaints of odors have come from the immediate



vicinity of some sewage treatment plants, especially during



the summer months when the daytime temperatures are high



and there is little or no air movement.  In most cases,


these odor problems are experienced only in areas imme-

                                           OOQ OQC;
diately adjacent to sewage treatment plants^  '^ ~" or open



manholes.229

-------
                                                         76
        In Chicago, 111., the sewer system in the city has

          OO Q
been cited^^ as a frequent source of offensive odors



emanating from manholes.  Such problems are not unusual in



communities where domestic sewage is discharged to a sewer


system which was originally designed to carry off storm



water.  Since storm sewers normally handle large volumes


of water over short time periods, they are laid on a grade


less than that required for a system handling only domestic



sewage.  As a result, solid sewage deposits often remain in



the sewer where they generate odors in the process of


decomposition.^29



        Malodorous gases are produced biologically in


sewers and treatment plants from organic compounds formed


by hydrolysis of materials like cystine and methionine and


by reduction of sulfates.  A survey of odors emitted most



frequently at some 300 sewage treatment  plants in the U.S.



shows that the methyl mercaptans, methyl sulfides, and


amines are leading causes, followed by indoles and skatoles,



and last of all the notorious hydrogen sulfide.219  Factors


that influence odorant generation in sewers include tempera-



ture, content, age, and pH value of sewage; flow velocity;



and ventilation of the sewer.

-------
                                                         77
        In the Washington, B.C.  metropolitan area about


1,000,000 cubic feet of sewage sludge gas is produced each


day by various sewage treatment plants.  This gas is used


as fuel for certain types of engines or for heating purposes,


or is wasted by flaring.295  Atmospheric measurements made


at a sewage treatment plant in El Paso, Tex., in 1958 showed


that the hydrogen sulfide atmospheric concentration varied


between 24 |_ig/m3 and 2,120 |~ig/m3 , with the average concen-


tration 610 |ag/m3 .  At a sampling station 100 yards from


the sewage plant, the maximum hydrogen sulfide concentration


was 2 05 p.g/m3 . -*


        At the Stickney treatment plant in southwestern


Chicago, a source of frequent odor complaint is believed to


be the storing or disposal of sewage sludge in lagoons at


the plant site on those occasions when the plant cannot use

                             090
non-odor-producing processes. ^



3.4.3  Miscellaneous Other Sources


        Many other sources of odors may cause complaints,


such as the use of fertilizers, insecticides, paint solvents,


and other solvents.


        A characteristic pungent odor is associated with



photochemical smog.  Ozone is the acrid component of this



odor.129

-------
                                                         78
3.5  Environmental Air Concentrations




        No quantitative data have been reported  on the  odor




concentration in ambient air even though a number of  odor




surveys have been made.  These surveys have shown detectable




disagreeable odors, but their intensity was not  reported.

-------
                                                             79
4.   ABATEMENT




            Odor abatement has been reviewed by Turk,284




    von Bergen,292 and Summer.272  The abatement methods




    employed depend largely on the odor-producing process,  the




    odorant, and other substances in the waste gas stream.




    These abatement methods fall into several categories:




    combustion,  absorption, adsorption,  odor masking,  odor




    counteraction, dilution,  source elimination, particulate




    removal, chemical control, biological control, and contain-




    ment.  Often two or more of these processes may be combined




    to eliminate an odor problem.




            Complete combustion is generally accepted  as the




    best way to deodorize malodorous gases.  However,  it may




    not be the most economical method.  Complete oxidation  of




    odorants converts hydrocarbons to odorless carbon  dioxide




    and water, and sulfur and nitrogen compounds to sulfur




    oxides and nitrogen oxides that usually have higher odor




    thresholds than the parent compounds.  Partial oxidation




    may increase the odor problem by the formation of  malodorous




    aldehydes.292




            Oxidation at 1,200°F or above has been recommended




    and usually gives satisfactory results.  The temperatures

-------
                                                         80
may be lower (500 to 800°F) when a catalyst is used.  This



will depend on the odorants and the possible catalytic



poisons in the gas stream.292



        Reed and Truitt228 point out that the control of



odors emitted from incinerators can take place either in



the combustion chamber or in the stack just before release



to the atmosphere.  They propose an auxiliary gas burner



with a flame temperature of at least 1,500°F.


                 p/r

        Benforado   has reported on measurements of odor



concentrations made before and after incineration in a



number of plants.  These results are tabulated in Tables 41



and 42, Appendix B.



        Odor-laden smoke from the coffee roasting industry



is most effectively controlled with afterburners, but fuel



requirements are increased 100 to 150 percent over those


                           210
for a conventional roaster.



        Where odorants are soluble in water or some other



liquid or solution, absorption may be used.  For example,



ammonia may be removed by spraying water through a chamber



containing the ammonia.  Hundreds of methods have been



devised for contact between vapor and liquid.  Some of



those used include simple vertical spray towers in single



or multiple stages and cascade vertical towers packed with

-------
                                                         81
partition rings, Raschig rings, spiral rings, Berl saddles,




hollow balls, helical packers, hexahelix blocks, double




spirals, cyclohelix blocks, prismic packings, centrifugal



                                                 2 74
or cyclone scrubbers, and bubble and sieve trays.




        Some solids will adsorb odorant compounds and thus




remove them from the system.  This process requires that




adsorbent and odorant be matched.  Activated charcoal has




the particular advantage that it will adsorb all types of




materials under almost any conditions.  However, the




efficiency of any adsorbent system is dependent on the



                                                       272
temperature, pressure, and flow rate of the gas stream.




        Odor masking is the process of eliminating the per-




ception of one odor or group of odors by superimposing




another odor or group of odors on it to create a new odor




sensation, preferably pleasant.  Odor-masking chemicals are




usually synthetic aromatic compounds or a mixture of these




compounds.292  Some examples of these are vanillin, methyl




ionones, eugenols, benzyl acetate, phenyethyl alcohol, and




heliotropin.  The proper masking agent does not alter the




composition of the preexisting odorant, but has a pleasant




smell that is strong enough to overpower the offensive




odorant.272

-------
                                                         82
        All smells cannot be masked.  In particular, strong




acids, even in traces, will defy masking because the agents



                                     979
used decompose under acid conditions.




        Masking agents may be applied directly to raw




material (sewage, animal or vegetable waste, blood), drip-




fed into process lines, added to scrubbing waters, injected




into gas streams, soaked into covers for small leaks, or




sprayed as a fog. '^




        The chief advantage of this method of control is




that little or no capital costs are involved.  Masking may




be used as a temporary measure while other control methods



              9 Q9
are developed.     Odor counteractants are often used



                                                     9 Q9
together with masking agents in a single application. ^




        The effect of odor counteraction is to reduce both




the odor of the counteractant and the odor of the malodorant,




When the two odors are sniffed together, both odors are




diminished.  This is often confused with odor masking, in




which equal strengths of two odorants may both be distin-




guished and the masking agent concentration must be in-



                                  292
creased to overpower the malodors.



        Moncrieff19° has cited the following examples of

-------
                                                         83
counteractant pairs j

                    Cedarwood and rubber
                    Wax and rubber
                    Wax and balsam of tolu
                    Paraffin and rubber
                    Rubber and balsam of tolu

        When benzene, toluene, xylene, pseudo-cumene, and

durene are mixed in small quantities, their odor strengths

are additive.  However, at higher concentrations, the odor

becomes faint.  Another example of counteraction is the

pair, butyric acid and oil of juniper.  When air is

bubbled through a butyric acid solution, the characteristic

strong, unpleasant odor is perceived.  Oil of juniper also

has an unpleasant odor, but a mixture of the vapors has a

faintly pleasant odor.

        Odor dilution will obviously result in odor-free

air as an odorant is diluted below the threshold concentra-

tion.  Such a method is feasible to remove an odor problem

from a plant area provided the weather conditions are

favorable.  However, unfavorable meteorological conditions

may cause the odorant concentration to increase above the

odor threshold.  Thus, the odor emission rate (odor units

per minute) must be weighed against the possibility of

adverse meteorological conditions in order to prevent odor

pollution.272'292

-------
                                                         84
        Another method of odor control is to eliminate or




reduce the odor-producing substance.  This type of control



                                             272
is being practiced by using low sulfur fuels.




        Many odorants are adsorbed on particulates,  and the




removal of these particulates may also reduce the odor.^




        Chemical control of odors is possible in many indus-




tries.  Chemical oxidation or combination may change an




odorant to a nonodorous  compound.  Frequently, chlorine or




potassium permanganate is added to a scrubbing solution to



                     072
oxidize the odorants.     Other reactions result in




ammonium acetate products that have no odor—for example,




the reaction of acetic acid with ammonia which produces




odorless ammonium acetate.  Ozonation, catalytic chemical




oxidation, silent electric discharge, and ultraviolet




radiation will all result in chemical conversion of some



                                                 272
odorants to compounds with a less offensive odor.




        Biological control may be possible in some opera-




tions.  The biological degradation of sewage produces




odorous gases.  However, it is known that some micro-




organisms (Beggiatoa alba) oxidize hydrogen sulfide to




water and sulfur, and this method has been suggested for



                    979
sewage odor control.

-------
                                                         85
        Containment offers a means of odor abatement in




some situations.  Covers on fuel tanks, sewage ponds, and




other open storage areas will reduce the emissions of




odor.272




4.1  Petroleum Industry




        Odor pollution control methods used most frequently




in the petroleum industry are scrubbing and combustion.   '




Mercaptans are often removed in alkaline scrubbers or con-




verted to disulfides.  Hydrogen sulfide is often treated




with an amine (diethanolamine) in a scrubber.  These mal-




odorous gases may be recovered from the scrubber in a




regeneration step for disposal by combustion in a waste gas




furnace.  Aldehydes do not present problems with proper



                        214
incinerator temperature.




        Kropp and Simons en1^ have described a fog-filter-




type scrubber that was successful in removing fatty-acid




odors, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfur dioxide.




4.2  Chemical Industry




        Abatement of odors in the chemical industry depends




entirely on the nature of the chemical process and the




odorant, each group requiring a specific control.



                         ~| p 9

        Ilgenfritz et al.x^ of Dow Chemical Company




emphasize that a large chemical complex such as their

-------
                                                         86
Midland, Mich., operation requires continual surveillance by

odor panels and immediate response to complaints.  Response

to complaints from in-plant personnel prevents out-of-plant

complaints by a ratio of 14 to 1.

        Sandomirsky et al.244 reported on an "intolerable

odorous fume condition" produced by a rubber processing

plant (B. F. Goodrich Company).  These odorants were non-

soluble and, therefore, could not be removed with a scrubber.

Incineration at 1,300°F was found to solve the problem.

Tests at lower temperatures showed that satisfactory inciner-

ation was achieved at temperatures down to 1,100°F, but smoke

and odor appeared as the temperature was lowered to 800°F.

The 1,300°F incineration resulted in a concentration of 50

odor units per standard cubic foot, approximately 205,000

odor units per minute.

4.3  Pulp and Paper Mills

                ? 4- *3
        Sableski  ° has summarized the odor control methods

for kraft mills as follows:

        Source                 Methods of Control

        Pulp digestion         Condensation of vapors
                                 followed by incineration

        Multiple-effect        Condensation of vapors
          evaporation            followed by scrubbing or
                                 incineration

-------
                                                         87
        Source                 Methods of Control (Continued)
        Direct-contact         Black liquor oxidation
          evaporators and        accompanied by strict
          recovery furnace       process control

        Dissolving tank        Scrubbing

        Condensate disposal    Stream stripping followed
                                 by incineration

        Lime kilns             Improved mud washing and
                                 use of scrubbing fluids
                                 without sulfides

        The greatest reduction of odorant emissions was

achieved by the black liquor oxidation process.  The pro-

cess consists of oxidizing the sulfides in the weak black

liquor (before going through the multiple-effect evapora-

tors) or strong black liquor (after going through the

multiple-effect evaporators) by contacting it with air in

a packed tower or thin film or porous plate black liquor

oxidizing unit.  The oxidation converts the sulfides to

less volatile compounds which are less odorous and have

less tendency to escape.     This has the effect of reducing

the odorant emissions from the direct-contact evaporator

and the recovery furnace stack by 80 to 95 percent.   '   '

The weak black liquor oxidizing process also reduces emission

from the multiple-effect evaporators.

        Tha majority of the black liquor oxidizing systems

installed in the United States, which are based on oxidizing

-------
                                                         88
weak liquor, are located in the Western part of the country.




In the South, the woods used in kraft processes cause




excessive foaming problems in the weak black liquor oxidiz-




ing process.   '     TO alleviate this, a few southern mills




have installed an oxidizing process based on oxidizing the




strong black liquor.207'208




        The key to minimizing odorous emissions from the




recovery furnace even in those systems employing black




liquor oxidizing systems is proper furnace operating condi-




tions.  For minimum emissions from the recovery furnace




the furnace should not be operated above design conditions.




There should be 2 to 4 percent excess oxygen leaving the




secondary burning zone (i.e., leaving the furnace), and




there should be adequate mixing (turbulence) in the secondary




combustion zone.




        In the direct-contact evaporator, where flue gases




from the recovery furnace are used to concentrate the black




liquor, the carbon dioxide in the flue gases reacts with




the sulfite in the black liquor to release hydrogen sulfide.207




As noted before, this is substantially reduced by the black




liquor oxidizing process.  However, some sulfite remains even




after the oxidation.  Therefore, removal of the direct-contact

-------
                                                         89
evaporator from the stream would further reduce hydrogen



                  9 D7
sulfide emissions.




        To reduce recovery furnace particulate emissions,




some mills have installed a secondary wet scrubber follow-




ing the primary scrubber (direct-contact evaporator).




Limited pilot plant studies and experience in some plants




have shown that weak wash (weak caustic solutions) has




removed hydrogen sulfide from the stack gases.  In other




instances, no hydrogen sulfide removal has been obtained




in such a system.  In general, the removal of hydrogen




sulfide from flue gases containing 11 to 14 percent carbon




dioxide with a caustic solution has not been developed. 0»31,151




        Clement and Elliott45 have emphasized that the forma-




tion of malodorous gases in kraft mills takes place during




incomplete oxidation in both the contact evaporator and




recovery furnace.  They recommend the elimination of the




direct-contact evaporator  by replacing it with a multiple-




effect evaporator.  This step—together with complete combus-




tion in the upper part of the furnace by thorough mixing of




additional air admitted through secondary and tertiary air




ports—has resulted in reducing the hydrogen sulfide to less




than 1 ppm and organic malodorous compounds to nondetectable




concentrations.  Clement and Elliott further point out that

-------
                                                          90
in 1968, 45 plants in Sweden and 3 in the United States were




using such as arrangement.




        Hochmuth109 has reported that Combustion Engineering,




Inc. has developed a heat exchanger to use the recovery




furnace gases to preheat air for the direct-contact evapora-




tion.  Gases leaving the direct-contact evaporator are then




incinerated.  This method eliminates the contact evaporator




as an odor source.




        Another source of odorous emissions from kraft mills




is provided by the noncondensible gases released for diges-




ters and multiple-effect evaporators.  These emissions have




been minimized by various systems, generally based on




collecting the noncondensible gases in a gas holder, then




oxidizing or burning them at a constant flow rate.  The




various methods used are the following:




        (1)  Burning the gases in the recovery furnace or




lime kiln.250




        (2)  Oxidizing the gases in a separate catalytic




oxidizing furnace or a direct-flame incinerator. 51'245




        (3)  Oxidizing the gases in an absorption tower




with aqueous chlorine solutions, such as chlorine bleach




water from the bleach plant, waste chlorine, hypochlorite,




etc.  Sometimes this is followed by passing them through

-------
                                                         91
another absorption tower, where the absorbent is either a




weak chlorine solution or a caustic solution.1-^, 250, 296




        (4)  Absorbing the gases with a caustic solution in




a scrubber. ^4




        Sableski243 mentions that the gases can be collected




in a floating roof tank rather than the Vaporsphere, thus




avoiding the problem of diaphragm leakage.




        In the lime kiln, odorous emissions may be sub-




stantially reduced through the use of wet scrubbers with an




alkaline absorbent, efficient control of cumbustion, and




proper washing of lime mud.  Scrubbing smelt tank gaseous




emissions with weak wash or green liquor in an absorption



                                                     peg
tower will reduce odorous emissions from this source.




        Around 1951, masking of odors by adding aromatic




compounds to the digester, the black liquor, and the stack




gases was tried in the United States.  This strictly make-




shift approach did not solve the basic pollution problem



                                    296
and is not used at the present time.




4.4  Coke Ovens and Coal




        In coke-oven plants, gases are often removed by




passing the gases through iron-oxide-impregnated wood




shavings.10'14^'266  This process is generally nonregenera-




tive,  although methods for regenerating the iron oxide have

-------
                                                          92
recently been developed.     Regenerative liquid absorption



systems using such absorbents as ammonium carbonate, sodium



thioarsenate, and sodium arsenate solutions have also been


used.89'145



4.5  Diesel Engine Odors



        The similarity between smoke- and odor-causing


factors in diesel exhaust suggests that the same methods to



control one will control the other to some extent.  This is

                                        O og
further indicated by Rounds and Pearsall    in their summary:



"Several special approaches to exhaust gas odor reduction


were tried, but no panacea was found.  For the present, close


attention should be given to factors such as improved engine



and injector design, proper fuel and oil, good maintenance,


and avoidance of overloading."



        Some work is being done to develop exhaust converters



to reduce diesel odor.  However, numerous  engineering prob-


lems remain to be solved.  The sulfur content of fuel and



the type of lubricating oil used appear to be more important



with respect to odor and irritation  than to smoke.  Decreas-


ing the scavenging air of two-stroke engines has improved



fuel economy, decreased exhaust volume, and presumably de-


                       T c o                              i CTQ
creased odor intensity. J   Along the same lines, London 30

-------
                                                         93
has suggested, "Possibly the light load stench can be re-




duced by intake air throttling so as to reduce the air-to-




fuel ratio from 80 to 90 down to 50 to 60."




        Odorants or masking agents offer a different approach




to the diesel odor problem.  In this connection, the Cleveland




Transit System, General Motors Diesel Coach Division, Sindar




Corporation, and Rhodia Company, Inc. conducted tests for




approximately 1 year on the effects of masking agents.  They




concluded at the end of that time that:158'252




        (1)  The main combustion products have not been




altered by the additives tested.




        (2)  Normal engine life is not affected.




        (3)  Additives can be completely soluble in the




fuel and do not form deposits before or after combustion.




        (4)  There was little, if any, reduction of odor




intensity or of eye, nose, or throat irritation.




        (5)  Odor quality was changed and improved.




        The cost of the additive increased the price of




diesel fuel by about 0.2 cent per gallon.




4.6  Meat Industry




4.6.1  Feedlots




        Control of feedlot odors depends primarily on sani-




tation and housekeeping.  If the pens  are paved with either

-------
                                                         94
concrete or asphalt, daily cleaning and manure removal may




be necessary.  According to Moorman19^ and Faith,78'260 it




is important that there be adequate drainage so that manure




will dry.  If the manure can dry before putrefaction takes




place, then manure need only be removed two or three times




per year.  One method of accelerating the drying process is




to scarify the manure with a spring-tooth harrow to enhance




evaporation.




        The use of odor counteractants have proven to be




more successful than the use of a masking agent.  Moorman




points out that in some cases more complaints were received




when masking agents were used than when the manure odor was




untreated.  Another common method of control is with




potassium permanganate.  The treatment consists of spraying




a 1 percent solution of potassium permanganate (20 pounds




per acre) in the corrals.




        Removal of manure in commercial feedlots presents a




problem because there is considerably more supply than de-




mand for the raw material.  Therefore, manure dehydrators




have in many cases been installed adjacent to feedlots to




package manure for shipment and sale.  Storage and handling




become important in relation to both the odor problem and




the cost of operation.  An odor control agent such as

-------
                                                         95
potassium permanganate is usually all that is necessary to




prevent odor problems during storage.  The application of




counteractants prior to bagging can serve to deodorize the




bagged material and plant exhaust.




4.6.2  Livestock Slaughtering




        As has been explained, odorous air contaminants are




emitted from several points in a slaughtering operation.




Installing control equipment at each source would be diffi-




cult if not impossible.  Methods of odor control available




include (1) rigid sanitation measures to prevent the decompo-




sition of animal matter, and (2) complete enclosure of the




operation to capture the effluent and exhaust it through a




control device.




        When slaughtering is government-inspected, the




operators are required to wash their kill rooms constantly,




clean manure from stock pens, and dispose of all by-products




as rapidly as possible.  These measures normally hold plant




odors to tolerable levels.




        When a slaughterhouse is located in a residential




area, the odor reduction afforded by strict sanitation may




not be sufficient.  In these instances, full-plant air




conditioning may be necessary.  Filtration with activated




carbon has been cited51 as the only practical means of

-------
                                                         96
controlling the large volume of exhaust gases from a plant



of this type.  The latter method has not yet been employed



at slaughterhouses in the United States.  Nevertheless,



activated-carbon filtration of the entire plant has been



employed to control similar odors at animal matter by-



product plants.  With increasing urbanization, this method



of control may conceivably be used in the near future.



4.6.3  Inedible Rendering of Animal Matter



        The principal devices used to control odorant



emissions from rendering plants are afterburners and con-



densers, installed separately or in combination.  Adsorbers



and scrubbers are also used.  Selection of the odor control



equipment depends largely on the moisture content of the



malodorous stream.  Steam-laden streams can be controlled



by condensation, while those from air driers and auxiliary



processes require incineration, scrubbing, or adsorption. 1


     O Q "3
Walsh''y° claims that combinations of condensers and incinera-



tion devices have been utilized to achieve odor removal



efficiencies greater than 99.99 percent.  He suggests that



surface condensers are more desirable than contact conden-



sers because the odor-laden water cannot be run through a



cooling tower.

-------
                                                         97
                    180
        Mills ,e_t al.    have reported odor removal efficien-




cies from a dry rendering cooker.  These data are tabulated




in Table 43, Appendix B.




        Exhaust gases from air drying processes must be in-



                              293
cinerated, according to Walsh,    because they contain about




80 percent air and other noncondensible gases.  The recommended




incineration temperature is 1,200°F.




        Carbon adsorbers are as efficient as afterburners.


       O fi C

Strauss    has reported that the use of activated charcoal




adsorbers following a surface condenser-cooling tower




arrangement has virtually eliminated odors from a rendering




plant in Australia.  The surface area of the carbon bed is




large enough to give a linear velocity of 40 ft/min, and




the usable life of the carbon is 6 months.




        Scrubbing solutions of both sodium hypochlorite




and potassium permanganate   have been used to oxidize



                                             T80
odorants from rendering plants.  Mills et al.    claim that




an afterburner is more efficient than a chlorinator.  How-




ever, the chlorinator-scrubber has been successful in




removing odors from fish meal driers    and a glue factory-




Posselt and Reidies    have reported odor reduction by oxida-




tion with potassium permanganate.  The results of their

-------
                                                         98
experiments are shown in Table 44, Appendix B.




        Use of odor counteractants and masking agents have




shown limited success in the local area of the rendering




plant but are of little use in abating the odor pollu-



tion.51'260




4.7  Sewage




        Santry    has reviewed the odor control methods for



sanitary sewers and claims that control methods fall into




these categories:  physical control, chemical control, bio-




logical control, and a combination of these.




        In sewage plants, the most comprehensive elimination



of odors is accomplished by enclosing the process and vent-


                                1 c q
ing the gases to an incinerator. JJ  Odorous gases are piped




from critical points in the plant and burned at temperatures




of 1,100 to 1,500 F.    Afterburners are also employed to




control odor emissions from sewage treatment plants.



        Other methods of removing odors are absorption or



chemical oxidation of the gas.  The oxidation process is



                                               2 3S
utilized in New York City and in Sarasota, Fla.     Ullrich


        9 QC
and Ruff''00 reported on a catalytic oxidation unit that was




used to control sewer odors in Austin, Tex.




        In sewers,  the production and release to the atmos-




phere of sewage gas can be minimized by maintaining

-------
                                                         99
sufficient velocities of sewage to avoid buildup, minimizing




pressure lines, minimizing points of high turbulence,




insuring adequate ventilation, injecting air to maintain




aeration, cleaning sewers to remove slime and silt, using




chemicals such as chlorine and ozone to suppress biological




activity,  2 and adding specific biota to suppress the




development of organisms producing hydrogen sulfide.




A method of preventing release of odorous gas to the atmos-




phere that has had some degree of success is trapping the




gas in laterals, branches, and mains by use of specially



                                            245
designed junctions, followed by incineration.     A method




utilized by the County Sanitation District of Los Angeles




to control hydrogen sulfide is to add lime slurry  periodi-


                                .  .   245
cally in relatively large quantities.

-------
                                                            100
5.   ECONOMICS




            Economically,  the impact of odors  is  far-reaching.




    Because  noxious  and  foul  odors can ruin personal  and  commu-




    nity pride,  interfere  with human relations, discourage




    capital  investment,  lower socioeconomic status, and damage




    a community's  reputation, the economics of a  community may




    be closely related  to  any odor pollution problem.  Both




    people and industry desire to locate in a  desirable area




    in which to live, work,and play; the natural  tendency is  to




    avoid communities and  localities with obvious odor problems.




    Tourists shun  polluted areas.  The resulting  decline  in




    market and rental property values, tax revenues,  payrolls,




    and sales  can  be disastrous to a community.126'166'263




            However, industries which cause odor  pollution may




    be an economic advantage  to a community, since they provide




    job opportunities both in the industry itself and in




    businesses which service  the industry and  its employees.





            There  are many socioeconomic aspects  to odors which




    are difficult  to assess.   However, some incidents are easily




    evaluated.  For  example,  a downtown theater in Washington




    B.C.,  was  once evacuated  because of some odor which penetrated

-------
                                                        101
the theater, requiring the manager to refund the price of


admission.  The exact source of the odor was not reported,

                            ono
but sewer gas was suspected.


        The cost of odor control by an industry is economi-


cally important.  Often the cost is offset by economic bene-


fits gained through the control methods or from recovery of


waste products.  For example, odorous compounds are often


controlled by incineration, and the heat generated by


incineration used to provide heat for some industrial pro-


cess.  Good examples are the heat from the recovery furnace


in kraft pulp mills, heat recovered from incineration of


odorous gases in rendering plants, and heat produced from


sewage gas burners.


        Typical costs of control equipment installed in


Los Angeles County are listed in Table 45, Appendix B.

               Of:
Byrd and Phelps00 have presented a method of arriving at


what may be the most economical approach to odor control.


They suggest determining the emission rate (odor units per


minute) at each source of emission in a plant and the cost


for its control.  The cost per 1,000 units reduction can



then be computed, thus allowing management to assess the


costs of making improvements prior to expenditure of funds.

-------
                                                        102
        According to the American Petroleum Institute, as




reported by Elkin,'1 odor control costs in the petroleum




industry increased by a factor of eight in the 10-year




period 1956 through 1966.  This represented an increase of




from 6 percent of total air pollution abatement expenditures




by the industry in 1956 to 28 percent in 1966 (see Table 46




in Appendix B).




        Kasparick139 stated in 1965 that duPont had spent




nearly $100,000 on odor control for a neoprene chemical




plant, and furthermore, that the company had to abandon




some promising projects that could have saved thousands of




dollars annually because these projects would have contribu-




ted to an odor pollution.  In the same report, this author




states that the B.F. Goodrich Co. estimated that the annual




fuel cost for incineration of odorant effluents from their




rubber plant could be reduced from $26,600 to $10,650 by



                                     139
installing a recovery heat exchanger.


                       9 9Q
        Reed and Truitt^   suggest that the cost of operat-




ing an auxiliary gas burner to control odors in a 100-unit




apartment building will cost $490 per year for each unit and




about 41 cents per month for each suite served.




        The pulp and paper industry has spent about $75 million




to date to control air pollution emissions.  This figure

-------
                                                         103
includes $40 million spent over the last 4 years.  In the

next 4 years, the industry expects to spend $60 million.

The cost includes the amounts spent for all phases of air

pollution, including process changes in kraft mills.85

        Because of the large volumes of gases exhausted from

animal rendering plant driers, afterburner fuel requirements

are a major consideration in odor pollution control.  A

drier emitting 3,000 scfma requires about 4,800 scfh13 of

natural gas for 1,200°F incineration.  Means of recovering

the waste heat include using a steam generator and pre-

heating the drier air. •*-

        Strauss265 examined the economics of three control

systems for a rendering plant, as shown in Table 47, Appen-

dix B.  He concluded that the air-cooled unit (being a

single unit) was cheaper to install than the surface conden-

ser and cooling tower combinations which became less eco-
nomical for operating periods greater than 3 years.  The

operating costs of the direct spray condenser eliminated it

from further consideration in comparison with the other two

units.  The cost of scrubbing rendering plant gas with

potassium permanganate is reported to be $8.40 per day on a
        ascfm-standard cubic feet per minute.
        ^scfh-standard cubic feet per hour.

-------
                                                       104
20,000 cfm scrubber using a 1 to 2 percent solution of

                       n /- /-\
potassium permanganate.


        Many cities in the United States may be faced with


sewer-odor problems similar to those in Chicago (see Section


3.4.2).  To eliminate the odors emanating from the manholes


would be very expensive.  The Chicago Sanitary District


serves approximately 5,000,000 people and produces indus-


trial wastes equivalent to wastes from 3,000,000 people.


Their sewage systems, covering an area of 900 square miles,


drain into five major treatment plants.  To modernize even


one of these—such as the Stickney treatment plant—to


handle sewage in a nonoffensive manner would cost over


$5,000,000.229

-------
                                                            105
6.   METHODS  OF  ANALYSIS




            Methods  of odor  analysis  may be divided  into two




    groups:   organoleptic, and  chemical  or instrumental.  The




    organoleptic  methods, which rely  on  detection with the




    human  nose, are  completely  subjective,  but  other methods




    are  available to convert the subjective measurements into




    some meaningful  objective results.   Chemical  or  instrumental




    methods  for analyzing odorants—which are numerous—usually




    suffer from lack of  sensitivity.   Sensitive noses can detect




    odors  in quantities  impossible  to identify  and monitor with




    commercially  available instrumentation or chemical methods.




    6.1  Sampling Methods




            Samples  may  be collected  in  250-ml  Pyrex gas collect-




    ing  tubes.  The  air  sample  is aspirated with  a rubber squeeze




    bulb into the tube and isolated with stopcocks at both ends




    of the tube.26'97




    6.2  Qualitative Methods




            Only  the nose can measure odor quality,  and even




    then,  results are  strictly  qualitative.   The  odor surveys




    that have been conducted are examples of qualitative odor




    analyses.   In these  surveys,  high school students,  firemen,




    and  panelists have been  asked to  sniff ambient air or air




    samples  and describe the odor quality,  strength,  and




    acceptability.26'97

-------
                                                        106
6.3  Quantitative Methods


6.3.1  Orqanoleptic Methods


        The most common method used is the vapor dilution


technique.  With this method, a sample is usually taken at


the sampling station (in ambient air, a plant waste-gas


stream, or any other desired sampling point) with a gas


sampling tube.  The sample is then returned to the labora-


tory, where it is diluted, usually by means of a syringe,


and presented to a panel of observers for evaluation of the


odor threshold dilution.26'162'164'256


        A modification of this method is the syringe dilu-


tion technique.  The sample is collected in a syringe and


removed in part to another syringe for dilution to produce


a test dilution for human appraisal.  Sensitivity limits


this method to use with nonambient odors.  However, it has


the advantage of being simple and easily portable.

                O £^
Benforado et al.   consider removal of the samples to the


laboratory for analysis an advantage, but Gruber et al.


believe this to be a disadvantage.


        The vapor dilution method may be a static method, a


continuous method, or a volatilization technique.  Some


instruments that have been based on the vapor dilution

-------
                                                        107
method, using the human nose as the detector, are listed

below:

        (1)  Static Method
             - -
             Checkovich -Turner Osmometer
                             21
             Barail Osmometer
             Elsberg-Levy Olf actometer74'
             Fair-Wells
        (2 )  Continuous Method
             Allison-Katz Odorimeter83
                                      q I p
             Zwaardemaker Olf actometerj
                                    -
Scentometer '
             Procter and Gamble

                                            196
             Nader Odor Evaluation Apparatus

         ( 3)  Volatilization Technique
             Flask Dilution Method1-^
             Enclosed Sniff-Blotter Technique164

         Of these  instruments, the scentometer requires

 special  mention because it is portable, inexpensive, and

 requires only one man for its operation.  However, this

 last advantage may become a disadvantage when it is desir-

 able to  have the  opinion of an  odor panel rather than a

 single person.  The  instrument  has several ports which

 allow air to pass through activated charcoal to provide

 "clean"  air for dilution with the odorous air sample.  By

 opening  and closing  the ports,  the operator can adjust the

 dilution threshold concentration.  Moreover, he can breathe

 "clean"  air to allow his nose to recover from olfactory

 fatigue, the main problem associated  with sniffing.

-------
                                                        108
        Other methods,  based on such properties as vapor



adsorption,  liquid dilution, and diffusion, are the



following:



        (1)   The vapor adsorption and breakthrough method is



based upon the time required for odor to "break through" an



adsorber column of known volume.  The Moncrieff Adsorption



Unit is based on this technique.^-°^



        (2)   The liquid dilution method uses an odorless



solvent to dilute the odorous material, and the human



appraisal is made on either the flask of diluent or on frac-



tions of the diluent.  The Elsberg-Levy Olfactometer  '


                                    o q
and Foster-Smith-Scofield Stimulator00 use this technique.



        (3)   The rate of diffusion method requires the



odorant to be placed on an adsorptive surface at the end of



a diffuser column which encloses odorless, static air.  Rates



of diffusion may be measured by determining the time re-



quired by the odorant to diffuse through the full length of



the tube (Ramsey Unit223) or the diffusion time may be



detected as  the odorant passes sniff ports along the length



of the tube (Snell Laboratory Air Force Unit90).



        Turk2^5 has described a method for determining the



intensity and character of diesel exhaust odors.  In this

-------
                                                        109







method an odor panel is screened by giving each person a




triangle test and intensity test.  The triangle test con-




sists of allowing each person to sniff five sets of three




samples.  Two of three samples are identical, while the




third is different.  He must detect which sample is differ-




ent.  The intensity test requires the person to rank in




intensity a solution of odorant with a series of dilutions




of the same odorant.  Panelists selected are then asked to




compare diesel exhaust gases with standards.  In Turk's




method, the standards were 32 liquids contained in poly-




ethylene bottles.  The head gas expelled by squeezing the




bottles served as the reference odors.  Overall exhaust odor




intensity was rated on a 1 to 12 scale, and the qualities




"burnt," "oily," "pungent," and "aldehyde/aromatic" were




each rated on a 0 to 4 scale representing the following




intensities:  none, slight, moderate, strong, and extreme.




        Duffee°-> reports that Battelle has developed a sniff




kit for rendering plant odors.  Methyl disulfide is present-




ed to  a human odor panel at five concentrations, ranging




from 0.001 to 10 percent, for comparison with the rendering




odors.  He claims that the kit may be used by a single un-




trained observer to determine the effectiveness of odor




control systems for rendering odorants or to compare odorant

-------
                                                        110
sources within or between plants.

6.3.2  Instrumental Methods

        Gas chromatography has been exploited by several

investigators-*- 6/32,81,243 as a means of measuring odorants

in the range of the odor threshold concentration of the

mercaptans.  Applebury and Schaer16 have reported successful

results.  They used a 40-ml sample and a Porapak Q column

(1/4" x 6') at 90°c.  The detector was a coulometric cell

with platinum electrodes similar to a design recommended by

Adams et al.   The reported minimum detectable concentra-

tions were the following-

            Hydrogen sulfide      0.1 ppm, 150 M-g/m3
            Methyl mercaptan      0.5 ppm, 1,000 ug/m3
            Sulfur dioxide        0.5 ppm, 650 |-ig/m3

                      261 a
        Stevens .et al.    have developed a gas chromatog-

raphy  method which they claim can be used to determine the

concentration of sulfur dioxide and other odorous gases pro-

duced in kraft paper mills.  Polyphenyl ether was coated

(4 percent) on 30-40 mesh teflon powder containers and

packed in 24 feet of teflon tubing.  A small amount (0.05

percent) of phosphoric acid was also added.  It was found

that sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan,

and carbon disulfide could be separated by this column with

very little loss.  A flame photometric detector was used to

measure concentrations down to 0.01 ppm.

-------
                                                            Ill
7.   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS




            Offensive odors in the air are a major air pollution




    problem in some areas.   These malodors cause many complaints,




    provoking emotional disturbances,  mental depression,  and




    irritability-   In some  instances health effects such as




    nausea,  vomiting, headache, loss of sleep,  loss of appetite,




    and impaired breathing  are induced.  Contact with odorants




    may cause varying degrees of reactions in allergic indivi-




    duals ,  particularly children.




            Sociologically, odor pollution can interfere with




    human relations in many ways.  It can damage personal and




    community pride, discourage capital investment, and lower




    the socioeconomic status of both the individual and the




    community.  Some State, county, and city governments have




    enacted laws that prohibit the emission of air pollutants




    which unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life and




    property-  However, no  odor standard has been established.




             No information has been found on the effects of




    odor air pollution on animals.  Odors per se have no effect




    on plants or materials.  However,  some odorants such as




    hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide may affect animals,




    plants,  and materials0



             The sources of odors are numerous and include pulp




    and paper mills, animal rendering plants, sewers and sewage

-------
                                                        112
treatment plants, garbage dumps and incinerators, chemical




plants, petroleum refineries, metallurgical plants, and




internal combustion engines, particularly diesel and air-




craft engines.  The most offensive odors come from plants




or processes which produce low molecular weight sulfur and




nitrogen compounds, such as ethyl- and methyl-mercaptans,




hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and dimethylamine.  Environ-




mental air concentrations of obnoxious odorants frequently




exceed the odor threshold concentration in some local areas,




and the odor has on occasions been recognized 20 miles from




the source.




        The most generally accepted method of abatement of




odors is incineration at the source.  However, improper




incineration may in itself be a source.  Other abatement




methods include adsorption, absorption, particulate removal,




source elimination, process changes, chemical control,




containment, odor masking, odor counteraction, biological




control, and dilution.




        Economically, noxious odors may stifle the develop-




ment and growth of a community.  Both people and industry




desire to locate in a place where it is pleasant to work,




live, and play.  Tourists shun polluted areas, and rental




and real estate property values may decrease.  The control

-------
                                                        113
of odor pollution is often very costly to an industry,




depending on the odor problem and the type of industry.




This cost may be reduced by economic benefits derived from




recovered heat or waste products. About $75 million have




been spent for air pollution control in the kraft paper




industry alone.




        Both laboratory and field methods have been developed




for measurement of odors at the source and in the ambient




air.  The human nose is the only valid odor detector, and




all methods rely on the judgment of one or more people who




make up the odor panel.  Only gas chromatography has been




developed to measure hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, and




sulfur dioxide at concentrations near the odor threshold.




        Based on the material presented in this report,




further studies are suggested in the following areas:




        (1)  Development of odor emission recommendations,




based on the effect of meteorological conditions on rate of




odor emission (odor units per minute).




        (2)  Measurement of the odor concentrations at




various distances from sources.




        (3)  Study of the pervasive character of the most




offensive odorants.

-------
                                                        114
        (4)  Development of methods for detecting the most




offensive odorants so that these odorants may be monitored




below the odor threshold.

-------
                                                         115
 REFERENCES

 1.  Absorption of Odorous Sulfur Compounds in Chlorine and
     Caustic Solutions, National Council for Stream Improvement,
     New York City, Atmospheric Pollution Technical Bulletin
     No. 23 (March 1965).

 2.  Adams, D. F., R. K. Koppe, and W. N. Tuttle, Analysis of
     Kraft-Mill, Sulfur-Containing Gases with GLC lonization
     Detectors, J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. ]J5(l):31 (1965).

 3.  Adams, D. F., et a1., Improved Sulfur Reacting Microcoulo-
     metric Cell for Gas Chromatography, Anal. Chem. 38(8):
     1094 (1966).

 4.  Air Pollution Abatement Manual, Manufacturing Chemists
     Assoc., Inc. (1955)

 5.  Air Pollution in the El Paso, Texas, Area, El Paso City-
     County Health Unit, 1959.

 6.  Air Pollution: The "Feds" Move to Abate Idaho Pulp Mill
     Stench, Science 157:1018  (1967).

 7.  The Air Pollution Situation in Terre Haute, Indiana, with
     Special Reference to the Hydrogen Sulfide Incident of May-
     June 1964, U.S. Public Health Service (1964).

 8.  Air Quality in Clark County, Wash., Washington State
     Department of Health, Seattle, Wash. (May 1965).

 9.  Air Quality Data from the National Air Sampling Networks
     and Contributing State and Local Networks 1964-1965, U.S.
     Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio (1966).

10.  Altybaev, M., and V. V.  Streltsov, Removal of Sulfur Com-
     pound from Gaseous Fuels, Coke Chem. (USSR) 8 (1966).

11.  Amoore, J. E., Perfumery Essent. Oil Record 43:321 (1952);
     Chem. Abstr. .47:2427 (1953).

12.  Amoore, J. E., The Stereochemical Theory of Olfaction,
     Proc. Sci. Sect. Toilet Goods Assoc., Special Suppl. to
     Vol. 37 (i) (1962).

13.  Amoore, J. E., Nature 198:271 (1963).

14.  Amoore, J. E., Ann.  N.Y. Acad. Sci. 116 ;457 (1964).

15.  Amoore, J. E., J. W.  Johnston, Jr., and M0 Rubin,  Sci.
     Am. 210(2) ;42 (1964).

-------
                                                         116
16.  Applebury, T. E., and M. J. Schaer, Analysis of Kraft
     Pulp Mill Gases by Process Gas Chromatography, Dept. of
     Cheiti. Eng., Montana State Univ., Bozeman, Mont. (1968)

17.  Atmospheric Emissions from Oil Refineries, U.S. Public
     Health Serv. Publ. 763  (1963).

18.  Backman, E. L.,  Note sur la puissance des odeours et leur
     solubilite dans 1'eau et dans 1'huile, J. Physiol. Path.
     Gen. 17;1  (1917).

19.  Baikov, B. K., Basic Experimental Data for the Determina-
     tion of Maximal Permissible Concentrations of Carbon
     Disulfide and Hydrogen Sulfide Simultaneously Present in
     the Air; Translated by B. S. Levine, U.S.S.R. Literature
     on Air Pollution and Related Occupational Diseases 12:47
     (1963).

20.  Baradi, A. F_, and G. H. Bourne, Science 113:660  (1951).

21.  Barail, L. C., Odor Measurement, Soap and Sanitary Chem.
     15(6):133  (1949).

22.  Barnebey, H. L., Activated Charcoal for Air Purification,
     Trans. Am. Soc.  Heating Air-Conditioning Eng. 64:481
     (1958) .

23.  Beck, L. H., and W. R. Miles, Some Theoretical and Experi-
     mental Relationships Between Infrared Absorption and
     Olfaction, Science 106:511  (1947).

24.  Beets, M. G. J., Molecular Structure and Organoleptic
     Quality, Soc. Chem. Ind. (London) Monograph No. 1  (1957).

25.  Benforado, D. M., and G. Cooper, The Application of Direct-
     Flame Incineration as an Odor Control Process in Kraft
     Pulp Mills.  Presented at the 22nd Engineering Conf.,
     Process Systems and  Controls, Water and Air Pollution,
     Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry,
     Atlanta, Ga.  (Sept. 19-22,  1967).

26.  Benforado, D. M., W. J. Rotella, and D. L. Horton,
     Development of an Odor Panel for Evaluation of Odor Con-
     trol Equipment,  J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. 19(2):
     101  (1969).

-------
                                                          117
27.  Berger, L. B., and R. T. Artz, Performance  of  a Diesel
     Mine Locomotive, Report of Investigation  4287,  U.S.  Bureau
     of Mines  (May, 1948) .

28.  Biederman, J. B., Sensitivity to Flowers, Laryngoscope
     47:1649 (1941).

29.  Blinova, E. A., Industrial Standards  for  Substances
     Emitting Strong Odors, Hycr. Sanit.  (Gigiena i  Sanit)
           18  (1965).
30.  Blosser, R. O., and H. B. H. Cooper, Jr.,  Secondary  Scrub-
     bing of Kraft Recovery Stack Gas, Presented  at 61st
     Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control  Association,
     St. Paul, Minn.  Paper No. 68-129  (June 23-27, 1968).

31.  Blosser, R. O., and H. B. H. Cooper, Jr.,  Trends  in
     Atmospheric Particulate Matter Reduction in  the Kraft
     Industry, Tappi 51 (5) :73A  (1968).

32.  Brooman, D. L., and E. Edgerley, Jr., Concentration  and
     Recovery of Atmospheric Odor Pollutants Using Activated
     Carbon, J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. _16_:25  (1966).

33.  Brown, E. A.,  Persistent Cough and Bronchospasm Due  to
     Exposure to Fumes of Range Oil, Ann. Allergy 7; 756  (1949).

34.  Brown, E. A.,  and N. J. Colombo, The Asthmogenic  Effect
     of Odors, Smells and Fumes, Ann. Allergy 12:14  (1954).

35.  Buell, G. C.,  and P. K. Mueller, Toxicity  of Ozone,
     AIHL-Rept. No. 18, State of Calif. Dept. of  Public Health,
     Mr and Ind. Hyg. Lab.,  Berkeley, Calif. (Sept. 1965).

36.  Byrd,  J. F., and A.  H. Phelps, Jr., in Air  Pollution,. vol. II,
     2nd ed., A. C . Stern, Ed. (New York:  Academic Press,
     p. 325, 1968).

37.  Byrd,  J. F., et al . , Solving a Major Odor  Problem in a
     Chemical Process, J. Mr Pollution Control Assoc. 14(2):
     509 (1964).

-------
                                                          118
38.   California Standards for ambient Air Quality  and Motor
     Vehicle Exhaust, Suppl. No. 2, Additional Ambient Air
     Quality Standards.  State of California, Dept. of Public
     Health (1962).

39.   California Standards for Ambient Aix Quality  and for Motor
     Vehicle Emissions, State of California, Dept. of Public
     Health, Bureau of Air Sanitation  (March 1967).

40.   Cajort, A., Letters of the International Corresp0 Soc.
     of Allergies. Series 17  (1953).

41.   Carl*  C.  E., and G. L. Christensen, Appraisal of Air
     Pollution in South Dakota, South Dakota State Dept. of
     Health Div. of Sanitary Engineering and U.S.  Public
     Health Serv.  (Aug. 1962).

42.   Carver, T. O., et al.. An Approach to a Solution of an
     Interstate Air Pollution Problem, Presented at the Annual
     Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Houston,
     Tex. (June 1964).

43.   Cederlof, R., et al., Studies of Annoyance Connected with
     Offensive Smell from a Sulphate Cellulose Factory, Nord.
     Hyq. Tidskr. XLV:39  (1964).

44.   Chass,  R. L., The Status of Engineering Knowledge for the
     Control of Air Pollution, Proc. of NatL.  Conf. on Air
     Pollution, Washington,   D.C.  (Dec. 10-12, 1962)? U.S.
     Public Health Serv. Publ. 1022  (1963).

45.   Clement,  J. L.,and J. S. Elliott, Kraft Recovery Boiler
     Design for Odor Control, Presented at the 4th Paper
     Industry Air & Stream Improvement Conference, Halifax,
     Nova Scotia  (Sept. 17. 1968).

46.   Coca,  A.  F., Asthma and Hay Fever  (Springfield, 111.:
     Charles C  Thomas, 1931).

47.   Collins,  R. P.,  and H. D. Gains, Appl. Microbiol. 12:335
     (1964).

48.   Control and Disposal of Cotton-Ginning Wastes, A Symposium
     at Dallas, Texas, May 3-4, 1966, U.S. Public Health Ser-
     vice,  Cincinnati, Ohio  (1967).

-------
                                                          119
49.  Control Techniques for Particulate  Air  Pollutants,
     National Air Pollution Control  Administration Publica-
     tion AP-51  (Jan. 1969).

50.  Cosentine, M. V., Control of Atmospheric  Odors from Fer-
     mentation Processes, Air Pollution   Control Assoc.  Mews
     4_  (Dec. 1956) .

51.  Danielson, J. A.  (Ed.), Air Pollution Engineering
     Manual, Air Pollution  Control  District County of Los
     Angeles.  U.S. Public Health Service, Bureau of Disease
     Prevention, Environmental Control,  National Center for
     Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati,  Ohio (1967).

52.  Davies, J. T., A Model System for the Olfactory Membrane
     Nature 174:693  (1954).

53.  Deadly Gases in Piggeries, German Res.  Serv.  _5(5):9 (1966)

54.  Deamer, W. C.   in The Allergic Child,  F.  Speer  (Ed-)
     York:  Hoeber-Harper, 1963).

55.  DeBesche, A., On Asthma Bronchiale  in Man  Provoked by
     Various Kinds of Animals, Acta  Med.  Scand.  .9_2_:209 (1937)-

56.  Decker, Ha, Praktikum der Allergischen  Krankheiten
     (Montana, 1930) .

57-  Delange, R., Residual Valency and Odor, Bull. Soc,  Chiin,.
     Beiges 31:589  (1922),

58.  Denmead, C. F., Air  Pollution by Hydrogen  Sulphide from
     a Shallow Polluted Tidal Inlet,  Auckland,  New Zealand,
     Clean Air Conference, First Technical Session.   Proc.
     Clean Air  Conf. Univ. New South Wales  1:20 (1962).

59.  Derbes, V. J., and H. T. Englehardt, Urticaria Due to
     Inhalant Substances, Southern Med.  J. 37.:729 (1944).

60.  Derbes, V. J., and J. D. Krofchuk,  Osmulogenic Urticaria,
     A.M.A. Arch. Dermatol. 76_:102  (1957).

61.  Diesel Exhaust Composition and  Odor: Progress Report for
     Year 1965, Scott Research Laboratories,  Inc.  (Oct.  1966).

-------
                                                          120
62.  A Digest of State Air Pollution  Laws,  1967  ed.,  U.S.
     Public Health Serv. Publ.  711  (1967).

63.  Dixon, J. P., The State of Our Atmosphere,  Proc.  Third
     National Conference on Air Pollution,  Washington,  B.C.
     (Dec. 12-14, 1966).

64.  Dixon, J. P., and J. P. Lodge, Air  Conservation  Report
     Reflects National Concern, Science  148 (1965).

65.  Duffee, R. A., Appraisal of Odor-Measurement  Techniques,
     J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.  .18.(7) :472  (1968).

66.  Duke, W. W., Allergy: Asthma, Hay Fever, Urticaria and
     Allied Manifestations of Reaction  (St.  Louis:  Mosby,
     1927).

67.  Durrans, T. H., Residual-Affinity Theory of Odors,
     Perfumery Essent. Oil Record 11:391 (1920).

68.  Dyson, G. M., Perfumery Essent.  Oil Record  19:456  (1928);
     Chem. Abstr. 21:853  (1929).

69.  Dyson, G. M., Perfumery Essent.  Oil Record  28:13  (1937).

70.  Dyson, G. M., Scientific Basis of Odour, Chem. Ind.  57:647
     (1938).

71.  Elkin, H. F., "Petroleum Refinery Emissions,"  in  Air  Pollu-
     tion, vol. III, 2nd ed.. A, C. Stern,  Ed. -(New York:
     Academic Press, 1968).

72.  Elliott, M. A., and R. F.  Davis,  Composition of  Diesel
     Exhaust Gas, Presented at  Society of Automotive  Engineers
     National Diesel Engine Meeting,  St.  Louis,  Mo.  (Nov.  1949)

73.  Elliott, M. A., et al., The Composition of  Exhaust Gases
     from Diesel Gasoline and Propane Powered Motor Coaches,
     J. Air Pollution  Control  Assoc. 5.(2)  (Aug. 1955).

74.  Elsberg, C. A., and I.Levy, The  Sense of Smell,  I.   A New
     and Simple Method of Quantitative Olfactometry,  Bull.
     Neurol. Inst. 4:5  (1935).

-------
                                                          121
75.   Elsberg, C. A., I. Levy, and E. D.  Brewer,  A New Method
     for Testing the Sense of Smell, Science   83:211   (1936).

76.   Epstein, S., Letter of  the International  Corresp.  Soc.  of
     Allergists, Series 17  (1953).

77.   Fabre, J. H., Social Life in the  Insect World  (London:
     Underwood, 1927).

78.   Faith, W. L., Odor Control in Cattle  Feed Yards,  J.  Air
     Pollution Control Assoc. 14(11):459 (1964).

79.   Feinberg, S. M., Living with Your Allergy (Philadelphia:
     Lippincott, 1958).

80.   Feinberg, S. M., and R. L. Aries, Asthma  from Food Odors,
     J. Am. Med. Assoc. 98.:2280   (1932).

81.   Feldstein,  M.,  S. Balestrieri,  and  D. A.  Levaggi,  Studies
     on the Gas Chromatographic Determination  of Mercaptans, J_.
     Air Pollution Control Assoc. 1J>.(5):215   (1965).

82.   Fitton, A., "Air Pollution from Road  Transport:  Part I,"
     in Proc. Mech.  Eng. Clean Air Conf.,  London  (1957).

83.   Foster, D., L.  A. Smith, and E. H.  Scofield,  A New Dirhinic
     Olfactory Stimulator, Am. J. Psychol. 60_:272  (1947).

84.   Fowler, P.  B. S.. Printer's Asthma, Lancet  2.; 7 55  (1952).

85.   Frost and Sullivan, Inc., CAMP  Reports on Air Pollution.
     New York   (1969).

86.   Fume Incineration Effective for Odor  Pollution Control,
     Ind. Heating  33(7):1266   (1966).

87.   Fyn-Djui, D., Basic Data for the  Determination of Limit
     of Allowable Concentration of Hydrogen Sulfide in Atmos-
     pheric Air, U.S.S.R. Literature on  Air Pollution and
     Related Occupational Diseases J5:66   (1961).

88.   Gamble, E.  A. M., AHI. J. Psychol. 10:82   (1898).

-------
                                                          122
89.  Gang, S. N., Coke Gas Purification  from  Hydrogen Sulfide
     in High Speed Rotary Absorbers,  U.S.S.R.   Literature on
     Air Pollution and Related Occupational Diseases 4_ (Aug.
     1960) .

90.  Gee, A. H., Organoleptic Appraisal  of Three  Component
     Mixtures, American  Society  for  Testing Materials Reprint
     105b  (1954).

91.  Gex, V..E., and J.  P. Snyder, New Device Wider Concept
     Helps to Measure Odors Quantitatively,  Chem.  Eng.  59 (12):
     200  (1952).

92.  Glaser, J., Allergy in Childhood,  (Springfield,  111.:
     Charles C  Thomas   1956).

93.  Goldbeck, R. A., J. H. Kaeding,  and W. E. Feroglia,  Odor
     Coding  for Malfunction Detection and Diagnosis,  Philco
     Corp.,  Palo Alto, Calif.  (Aug.  1966).

94.  Goodale, I. L., The Present Status  of Immunization  in Hay
     Fever,  Boston Med.  Surer. J.  179:293 (1918).

95.  Grekel, H., J. W. Palm, and J.  If}. Kilmer, Why  Recover
     Sulfur  from H2S?  Oil Gas J. ££.(44)  (1968) .

96.  Gruber, C. W., Odor Pollution from  the Official's View-
     point,  Presented at the 57th Annual Meeting, American
     Soc. for Testing Materials,  Chicago, 111. (1954).

97.  Gruber, C. W., G. A. Jutze,  and N.  A. Huey,  Odor Determi-
     nation  Techniques for Air Pollution Control, J. Air
     Pollution Control Assoc. 1^(4):  327 (1960).

98.  Grunder, L. J., West Coast  Diesel Odor Control - A  Progress
     Report, Presented at the Meeting of Canadian Transit Associ-
     ation  (March 1960) .

99.  Hainer, R. M., Theory presented at  New York  Basic Odor
     Conference  (1953).

100. Harkavy, J., Skin Hypersensitiveness to  Extract of  Tobacco
     Leaf, Tobacco Pollen, Tobacco Seed,  and  to Other Allergens
     in 200  Normal Smokers, J. Allergy 6:56  (1934).

-------
                                                         123
101.  Harstad, A. E., Control of Odors  from Feather  Processing,
      J. Mr Pollution Control Assoc.  (March  1956).

102.  Heller, H., A Critical Discussion of Teudt's Theory,
      Am. Perfumer 14:365  (1920).

103.  Heller, A. N., Methods of Evaluating Socioeconomic  Effects
      of Air Pollution, U. S. Public Health Service,  Cincinnati,
      Ohio  (July 12, 1966).

104.  Hendrickson, E. R.,  and C. I. Harding,  Black Liquor Oxi-
      dation as a Method for Reducing Air Pollution  from  Sulfate
      Pulping, J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.  14(12):487
      (1964).

105.  Henning, H., Per Geruch  (Leipzig, 1916).

106.  Henson, G. E., Garlic: Occupational Factor  in  Etiology
      of Bronchial Asthma, J. Florida M.D. 27.:86  (1940).

107.  Heyninx, A., Essai d'olfactigue physiologique,  Thesis,
      Brussels  (1919).

108.  Hilleboe, H. E., A Review of Air  Pollution  in  New York
      State, New York State Air Pollution Control Board  (July
      1958).

109.  Hochmuth, F. W., Odor Control System for  Chemical Recovery
      Units, Paper Trade J. 150  (Sept.  1968).

110.  Holland, W. C., R. L. Klein, and  A. H.  Briggs,  Chapter 13
      in Introduction to Molecular Pharmacology  HSfew York:
      Macmillan, 1964) .

111.  Holtz, J. C., et al., Diesel Engines Underground, IV.
      Effect on Composition of Exhaust  Gas of Variables In-
      fluencing Fuel Injection,  U. S.  Bureau of  Mines Report
      Investigation 3700  (April 1943).

112.  Horesh, A. J., Allergy to Food Odors.   Its  Relation to the
      Management of Infantile Eczema, J. Allergy  14:331  (1943).

113.  Horesh, A. J., Allergy to Odor of White Potato (Irish
      Potato), J. Allergy  15:117  (1944).

-------
                                                         124
114.  Horesh, A. J., Allergy Due to Food Odors,  Pediatrics 6:654
      (1950).

115.  Horesh, A. J., The Role of Odors  and Vapors  in  Allergic
      Disease, J. Asthma Res. 4.(2):125  (1966).

116.  Horstman, S. W., R. F. Wromble, and A.  N.  Heller,  Identi-
      fication of Community Odor Problems by  Use of an Observer
      Corps, J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.  15.(6):261  (1965).

117.  Huey, N. A., Ambient Odor Evaluation, U.  S.  Public Health
      Service, National Center for Air  Pollution Control,
      Cincinnati, Ohio  (June 1968).

118.  Huey, N. A., et al., Objective Odor Pollution Control
      Investigations, J. Air Pollution  Control -Assoc. lfi.(6):
      441  (1960) .

119.  Hughes, K. J., and R. W. Hurn, A  Preliminary Survey of
      Hydrocarbon Derived Oxygenated Material in Automobile
      Exhaust Gases, J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.  10(5)
      (Oct. 1960).

120.  Hull, C. D., et. al.. Nature  205:627  (1965).

121.  Hurn, R. W., et al.. The Potpourri That is Exhaust Gas
      Presented at the 27th Mid-Year Meeting  of  the American
      Petroleum Institute's Division of Refining,  San Francisco,
      Calif.  (May 1962) .

122.  Ilgenfritz, E. M., J. F. Shively, and M.  E.  Krienke,
      Surveying Air Quality at Dow Chemical Company,  Air  Eng.
      7_(10):20  (1965).

123.  In Quest of Clean Air for Berlin, New Hampshire, Technical
      Report A62-9, U. S. Dept. of Health, Education,and Welfare,
      Cincinnati, Ohio  (1962).

124.  Industrial Air Pollution, Factory. L23_(10):90 (1965).

125.  International Critical Tables of  Numerical Data, Physics.
      Chemistry and Technology.  Vol. I, National  Research
      Council of the U.S.A. (New York:  McGraw-Hill, 1926).

-------
                                                          125
126.  Interstate Air Pollution in the  Selbyville,  Delaware -
      Bishop, Maryland Area.  Preprint, U.  S.  Public  Health
      Service, Div. of Air Pollution,  "Washington,  D.  C.
      (Nov. 1965).

127.  Itskovics, A. A., The Stimulability  of  the Olfactory
      Analyser in the Hygienic Evaluation  of  Atmospheric Air
      Pollution, U.S.S.R. Literature on Air Pollution and
      Related Occupational Diseases  _3:106  (1960).

128.  Jaffe, L. S., The Biological Effects  of Ozone on Man and
      Animals, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 28.:267 (1967).

129.  Jaffe, L. S., The Biological Effects  of Photochemical Air
      Pollutants on Man and Animals, Am. J. Public Health 57_(8):
      1269  (1967).

130.  Jamieson, H. C., Asthma Due to Odor  of  Urine, Peces and
      Sweat, Ann. Allergy 5;234  (1947).

131.  Jenkins, H. N., and T. O. Harris, Interstate Air Pollution
      Study, Phase II.  Project Report.  IV.  Odors -  Results of
      Surveys, U. S. Public Health Service, Div. of Air  Pollution,
      Cincinnati, Ohio  (June 1966).

132.  Jenkins, D., L. L. Medsker, and  J. F. Thomas, Odorous
      Compounds in Natural Waters.  Some Sulfur Compounds
      Associated with Blue-Green Algae, Environ. Sci.  Technol.
      1(9): 731  (1967).

133.  Jensen, D. A., Sources and Kinds of  Contaminants from Motor
      Vehicles, Informative Report No. 4,  J.  Air Pollution Con-
      trol Assoc. ,14 (8): 17  (1964).

134.  Jenson, G. A., D. F. Adams, and  H. Stern, Absorption of
      Hydrogen Sulfide and Methyl Mercaptan from Dilute  Gas
      Mixtures, J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. 16.(5):248 (1966) „

135.  Jerome, E. A., Olfactory Thresholds  Measured in Terms of
      Stimulus Pressure and Volume, Arch.  Psvchol. 19_(274):5
      (1942).

136.  Jonsson, E., Annoyance Reactions to  External Environmental
      Factors in Different Sociological Groups, Acta  Socioloqica
      (Copenhagen) 7.(4):229  (1964).

-------
                                                         126
137.  Kaiser, E. R., in Air Pollution, vol.  I.,  A.  C.  Stern, Ed.
      (New York: Academic Press, p. 250,  1962).

138.  Kaiser, E. R., et al.. Performance  of  Flue-Fed  Inciner-
      ators, J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. .9(2) :85  (1959).

139.  Kasparick, M. F., Odor Control for  a Chemical Plant,
      Air Enq.  (Jan. 1965) .

140.  Katz, S. H., and V. C. Allison, U.  S.  Bureau  of Mines
      Tech. Paper 267  (1920).

141.  Kenline, P. A., and J. M. Hales, Air Pollution  and  the
      Kraft Pulping Industry.  An Annotated  Bibliography, U. S.
      Public Health Service, Div. of Air  Pollution  (Nov.  1963).

142.  Keogy, D. M., and J. J. Schueneman, Air Pollution in the
      Birmingham, Alabama Area, Technical Report A58-8, Robert A.
      Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio  (1958).

143.  Kerka, W. F., and E. R. Kaiser, An  Evaluation of Environ-
      mental Odors, J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. 7.(4)  (Feb.
      1958).

144.  Kinosian, J. R., J. A. Maga, and J. R. Goldsmith, The
      Diesel Vehicle and Its Role in Air  Pollution  -  A Report
      to the California Legislature, California  Dept.  of  Public
      Health, Bureau of Sanitation  (Dec.  1962).

145.  Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical  Technology, 1st  ed.
      (New York: Interscience, 1954).

146.  Krasovitskaya, M. L., et al.. Atmospheric  Pollution by
      Petroleum Refineries and Petrochemical Plants,  Ufa  Inst,
      Hyg. Occupational Health. UDC 614.72:665.5 (1964).

147.  Kreichelt, T. E., Air Pollution Aspects of Tepee Burners
      Used for Disposal of Municipal Refuse, U.  S.  Public Health
      Serv. 999-AP-28  (1966).

148.  Kreichelt, T. E., D. A. Kemnitz, and S. T. Cuffe, Atmo-
      spheric Emissions from the Manufacture of  Portland  Cement,
      U. S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio (1967).

-------
                                                          127
149.  Krisch, W., quoted in Can. Chera.  Proc.  Ind. .23.: 115 (1939).

150.  Kropp, E. P., and R. N. Simonsen,  Scrubbing Devices  for
      Air Pollution Control, Paint Oil  Chein.  Rev. 115(14) :11
      (1952).

151.  Landry, J. E., and D. H. Longwell, Advances in  Air Pollu-
      tion Control in the Pulp and Paper Industry,  Tappi 48(6):
      66A (1965).

152.  Larsen, R. I., et al.. Bases and  Types  of  Air Quality
      Criteria, An Informative Report by Task Group 2  of Air
      Pollution Control Association Coiranittee, TR-5 (1964).

153.  Ledbetter, J. O., Air Pollution from Wastewater  Treatment,
      Water-Sewage Works 113(2);43  (1966).

154.  Leonardos, G., D. Kendall, and N.  Barnard, Odor  Threshold
      Determinations of 53 Odorant Chemicals,  J. Air  Pollution
      Control Assoc. .12(2): 91  (1969).

155.  Linnell, R. H., and W. E.  Scott,  Diesel Exhaust  Analysis
      Techniques and Preliminary Results.   Presented at U.  S.
      Public Health Service and  California Dept. of Public Health
      Air Pollution Research Conference, Los  Angeles,  Calif.
      (Dec.  5, 1961).

156.  Linnell, R. H., and W. E.  Scott,  Diesel Exhaust Composi-
      tion and Odor Studies, J.  Air Pollution Control  Assoc.
      12.(11):510  (1962).

157.  Linsky, B., Report to Detroit Common Council  on  Emission
      of Odor, Smoke, Gas, etc.  from Diesel-Engined Coaches
      (June  1955) .

158.  London, A. L., The Application of Research to Motor  Vehicle
      Pollution Control - Can We Avoid  Afterburners?   Presented
      at the U. S. Public Health Service and  California Dept.
      of Public Health Air Pollution Research Conference,  Los
      Angeles, Calif.  (Dec. 5, 1962).

159.  Lozano, E. R., Ttf. "W. Melvin, and  S. Hocheeser,  Air Pollu-
      tion Emissions from Jet Engines.   Presented  at  the 60th
      Annual Meeting,  Air Pollution Control  Association,
      Cleveland, Ohio  (June 1967).

-------
                                                          128
160.   Mackenzie, M., Hay Fever: Its Etiology  and  Treatment with
      an Appendix on Rosecold, London  (1881).

161.   Maddox, R. N., and M. D. Burns,  Solids  Processing  for Gas
      Sweetening, Oil Gas J. 66_(25)  (June 1968).

162.   Manual on Sensory Testing Methods, American Society for
      Testing Materials Special Tech.  Publ. No. 434  (May 1968).

163.   Marchand, L., Chemical Constitution of  Odors,  Deut. Parf.
      Ztq. 1:223  (1915).

164.   Matheson, J. P., Qlfactometry: Its Te©hniques  and  Apparatus,
      J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.  .5(3):167  (1955).

165.   Matsak, V. G., The Purification  of Air  Pollution by Vapors
      and Gases from the Central Sanitary and Hygienic Labora-
      tory in Moscow, Giqiena i Sanit. 8.  (1950) .

166.   Matsushita, H., et al., Determination of  Threshold Values
      for Olfactory Perception of Primary Odour Substances,
      Ind. Health 5;221  (1967).

167.   May, J., Odor Thresholds of Solvents for  Assessment of
      Solvent Odors in the Air, Staub  26(9);34  (1966).

168.   McCaldin, R. O., and P- A. Kenline, Air Pollution  in
      Connecticut, U. S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati,
      Ohio  (1957).

169.   McCartney, "W., Olfaction and Odours  (Berlin: Springer,
      1968).

170.   McCord, C. P., and W. N. Witheridge, Odors:  Physiology  and
      Control  (New York: McGraw-Hill,  1949).

171.   McHard, J. D., and R. F. Wromble,  O.K. Air for the O.K.
      State - a Report on the Appraisal of Air  Pollution in
      Oklahoma, Oklahoma State Dept. of Health, Oklahoma City,
      Okla.  (Jan. 1965).

172.   Medalia, N. Z., Community Perception of Air Quality: An
      Opinion Survey in Clarkston, "Washington,  U.  S. Public
      Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio (1965).

-------
                                                         129
173.  Medsker,  L.  L.,  D.  Jenkins,  and J. F. Thomas, An Earthy-
     Smelling  Compound Associated with Blue-Green Algae and
     Actinoroycetes,  Environ. Sci. & Technol. 2 (6) :461  (1968).

174.  Melekhina, V.  P., Maximum Permissible Concentration of a
     Formaldehyde in Atmospheric Air, Gigiena i Sanit.  23:10
      (1958).

175.  Mellor,. J. F.,  A Multipurpose Flare Stack for Control of
     Chemical  Process Wastes,  J.  Air Pollution Control Assoc.
     3.0(6)  (1960).

176.  Mel'ster, F. G., et al.,  Reduction of Atmospheric Pollu-
     tion  in Tashkert, Tashkert Sanitary Epidemiological
     Center, Hycr. Sanitation 10(10-12) : (1956).

177.  Mencher,  S.  K.;  Change Your Process to Alleviate Your
     Pollution Problem,  Petro/Chem Engr.39(5):214  (1967).

178.  Miles, W. R.,  and L. H. Beck, Science 106;512  (1947).

179.  Mills, J. L.,  J. A. Danielson, and L. K. Smith, Control
     of Odors  from Inedible Rendering and Fish Meal Reduction
     in Los Angeles County.  Presented at the 60th Annual
     Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Cleveland,
     Ohio  (June 1967).

180.  Mills, J. L.,  et al.. Quantitative Odor Measurement, J.
     Air Pollution Control Assoc. JL3_:467  (1963).

181.  Missenden, J.,  Intensity and Quality of Odors, Perfumery
     Essent. Oil  Record 17;62  (1926).

182.  .Mohanrao, G. J., C. A. Sastry, and W. F. Garber, Hydrogen
     Sulphide  in  Concrete Sewers and Digester,  J. Inst. of Eng.
      (India) 46 (6): 90 (1966).

183.  Molos, J. E.,  Control of Odors from a Continuous Soap
     Making Process,  J.  Air Pollution Control Assoc. 11 (1);9
      (1961).

184.  Moncrieff, R.  W., The Chemical Senses. 1st ed.  (London:
     Leonard Hill,  1944).

-------
                                                         130
185.  Moncrieff, R. W., The Chemical Senses.  2nd  ed.  (London:
      Leonard Hill, 1951).

186.  Moncrieff, R. W., Am. Perfumer Cosmet.  78 (12):37  (1953);
      in Chem. Abstr. 6.0:6695  (1964).

187.  Moncrieff, R. W., The Characterization  of Odors,  J.
      Phvsiol. 125:453  (1954).

188.  Moncrieff, R. W., J. Appl. Phvsiol.  16.r742  (1961).

189.  Moncrieff, R. W., Drug Cosmetic Ind.  9.1:705 (1962).

190.  Moncrieff, R. IV., The Chemical Senses,  3rd  ed.  (London:
      Leonard Hill, 1967).

191.  Moncrieff, R. TV., Odor Preferences   (London:  Leonard  Hill,
      1968).

192.  Monganelli, R. M., and C. J. Gregory, The Effect  of Hydro-
      gen Sulfide on Various Surfaces, Atmospheric  Pollution
      Technical Bulletin No. 25, National  Council for Stream
      Improvement, Inc., New YorK  (1965) .

193.  Moorman, R., Jr., Controlling Odors  from Cattle Feed  Lots
      and Manure Dehydration Operations.   Presented at  the  Air
      Pollution Control Association Meeting (June 21-25, 1964).

194.  Muller, A., Dipolar Theory of Olfaction, Perfumery Essent.
      Oil Record 27:202  (1936).

195.  Nader, J. S., Current Techniques  of  Odor Measurement,
      Chemical Toxicological Conference, A.M.A. Arch. Ind.
      Health 17(5);  (1958).

196.  Nader, J. S., An Odor Evaluation  Apparatus  for Field  and
      Laboratory Use.  Presented at the 1957  Annual Meeting of
      the American Industrial Hygiene Association,  St.  Louis, Mo.

197.   NaOCL Solves Odor Problem,  Processes  & Technology,  p.  164. (1968

198.  National Goals in Air Pollution Research, Surgeon General's
      Ad Hoc Task Group on Air Pollution  (Aug. 1960).

-------
                                                           131
199.  Niccolini, P., Detection of Odors, Boll.  Soc.  Ital. Biol.
      Sper. 8:424  (1933) .

200.  Nicol, H., The Perception of Odour,  Per f umery  Essent.  Oil
      Record 3/7:176  (1926).

201.  Nolan, M., A Survey of Air Pollution in Communities Around
      the John F. Kennedy International Airport,  U.  S.  Public
      Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio  (June 1966).

202.   Odor Determinations on a Numerical  Basis... The Fair-Wells
      Osmoscopes,  Bull. No. 524, Eimer &  Amend,  New York, N.Y.

203.  Ogle, W. , Med.-Chir. Trans. 53_:263  (1870).

204.  Oil Gas J. 6_7(4)  (Jan. 1969).

205.  Oil Gas J. .67(9)  (Jan. 1969).

206.  Oliver, E. A., Discussion to Temple ton, J«  Am. Med.
      Assoc. 122=910  (1945).
207.  Owens, V. P., Considerations  for  Future  Recovery Units  in
      Mexican and Latin American Alkaline  Pulping Mills,  Com-
      bustion pp. 38-44  (Nov.  1966).

208.  Owens, V. P., Trends  in  Odor  Abatement from Kraft Mill
      Recovery Units, Paper Trade J.  152 (33) ; 52  (1968).

209.  The Oxides of Nitrogen in Air Pollution,  State of Cali-
      fornia,  Dept. of Public Health,  Bureau  of Air Sanitation,
      Berkeley, Calif.  (Jan. 1966).

210.  Partee, F., Air Pollution in  the  Coffee  Roasting Industry,
      U. S. Public Health Service,  Div. of Air Pollution  (Sept.
      1964).

211.  Pendray and Co., N.Y.C., Opinion  Survey  on Odors and Fumes
      as Air Pollution Problems  (March  29,  1955) .

212.  Permissible Immission Concentrations of  Hydrogen Sulphide,
      VDI 2107  (April 1960) .

-------
                                                          132
213.  Petri, H.,  Assessing the Health Hazards of Gaseous  Air
      Pollutions,  Staub 25:50  (1965).

214.  The Petroleum Refining Industry - Air  Pollution  Problems
      and Control Methods.  Informative Report No.  1., J.  Air
      Pollution Control Assoc. 14(1):51  (1964).

215.  Pirrone, F., Odor and Chemical Structure,  Rivista Ital.
      Essenze Profumi 11; 2  (1929).

216.  Plotkinova, M. M., Acrolein Pollution  in the  Atmosphere,
      Gicriena i Sanit. 22.-.10  (1957).

217.  Popov, I. N., Y. F. Cherkasov, and 0.  L. Trakhtnian,  Deter-
      mination of Sulfur Dioxide Odor Threshold  Concentration,
      U.S.S.R. Literature on Air Pollution and Related Occupa-
      tional Diseases 3:102  (1960).

218.  Posselt, H. S., and A. H. Reidies, Odor Abatement with
      Potassium Permanganate Solutions, Ind. Eng. Cheni. Prod.
      Res. Develop. .4:48  (1965).

219.  Post, N., Counteraction of Sewage Odors, Sewage  Ind.
      Wastes 28(2):221  (1956).

220.  "Prepared Statement of Andrew W. Miller, Mayor of Steuben-
      ville, Ohio," in Air Pollution - 1968. Part 1. Hearings
      Before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the
      Committee on Public Works. U. S. Senate, p. 75  (1968).

221.  Public Awareness and Concern with Air  Pollution  in the
      St. Louis Metropolitan Area, U. S. Public  Health Service,
      Div. of Air Pollution, Washington, D.  C.  (May 1965).

222.  Pulp, Paper and Board Branch, Forest Product  and Packing
      Division, Business and Defense Services Administration,
      Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.

223.  Ramsey, W., Nature 26.: 187 (1882).

224.  Randolph, T. G., Allergic Headache, J. Am. Med.  Assoc. 126:
      430  (1944).

-------
                                                          133
225.  Rappaport, B. Z., and R. Hecht, Wood  Smoke  as  a  Cause
      of Asthma, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 113.: 1024  (1939).

226.  Rappaport, B. Z., and M. M. Hoffman,  Urticaria due  to
      Aliphatic Aldehyde, J. Am. Med. .Assoc.  116:2656  (1941).

227.  Reckner, L. R., W. E. Scott, and W. F.  Biller, The  Com-
      position and Odor of Diesel Exhaust,  Proc.  Am. Petrol.
      Inst. 45_:133  (1965) .

228.  Reed, R. J., and S. M. Truitt, Selecting Incinerator
      Smoke and Odor  Burners, Air Repair 4(3): 109  (1954).

229.  Report on Bi-State Study of Air Pollution in the Chicago
      Metropolitan Area, Indiana State Board  of Health and
      Illinois Department of Public Health  (1957-1959).

230.  Report on Interstate Air Pollution in the Shoreham, Vermont-
      Ticonderoga,   New York Area, Abatement Branch,  U.  S.
      Public Health Service, Div. of Air Pollution  (Nov.  1965).

231.  Restricting Emission of Hydrogen Sulphide and  Other Sul-
      phur Containing Compounds, Except Sulphur Dioxide,  from
      Gas Generators in Coke, Gas, and Coal-Constituent Pro-
      cessing Plants, The Anthracite-Mining Association,  Essen,
      Germany, VDI No. 2109  (May 1960).

232.  Roberts, D. X., The Four-Cycle Diesel.  Presented at
      Meeting of Canadian Transit Association, Toronto, Canada
      (March 1960) .

233.  Robinson, E., and R. C. Robbins, Sources, Abundance and
      Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants.  Final Report.
      Stanford Res. Inst. Project PR-6755  (Feb. 1968).

234.  Roderick, W. R., Current Ideas on the Chemical Basis of
      Olfaction, J. Chem. Educ. 43(10):510  (1966).

235.  Ronald,  D., Handbook of Offensive Trades  (London: William
      Hodge and Co., 1935).

236.  Rosen,  A. A., J. B. Peter, and F. M.  Middleton,  Odor
      Thresholds of Mixed Organic Chemicals,  J. Water  Pollution
      Control Federation 3.4(1); 7 (1962).

-------
                                                          134
237.   Rosen,  F. L., and A. Levy, Bronchial Asthma Due to
      Allergy to Tobacco Smoke in an Infant.  A Case Report,
      J. Am.  Med. Assoc. 144:620  (1950).

238.   Rossano, A. T., Sources of Community Air Pollution -
      Atmospheric Pollution.  Presented Before the Interdisci-
      plinary Conference on Atmospheric Pollution, Santa
      Barbara, Calif. (June 1959) .

239.   Rounds, F. G., and H. W. Pearsall, Diesel Exhaust Odor,
      Its Evaluation and Relation to Exhaust Gas Composition,
      Presented at Society of Automotive Engineers National
      Diesel Engine Meeting, Chicago, 111.  (Nov. 1956).

240.   Rowe, A. H., "Elimination Diets and the Patient's Allergies,"
      in Handbook of Allergy, 2nd ed.   (Philadelphia: Lea and
      Febiger, 1944).

241.   Ruzicka, L., Die Grundlagen der Geruchschemie, Chem. Zta.
      44 (1920).

242.   Sableski, J. J.,  The Federal Air Pollution Control Program
      as it Relates to the Kraft Pulping Industry.  Presented at
      52nd Annual Meeting of Technical Association of the Pulp
      and Paper Industry, New York, N.Y. (Feb. 1967).

243.   Sableski, J. J.,  Odor Control in Kraft Mills, A Summary
      of the State of the Art, U. S. Public Health Service,
      National Center of Air Pollution Control, Cincinnati,
      Ohio (May 10, 1967).

244.   Sandomirsky, A. G., et al.. Fume Control in Rubber Proces-
      sing by Direct-Flame Incineration.  Presented at the Air
      Pollution Control Association 59th Annual Conference,
      San Francisco, Calif.  (June 20-24, 1966).

245.   Santry, I. W., Jr., Hydrogen Sulfide Control Measures,
      J. Water Pollution Control Federation 38(3):459  (1966).

246.   Salter, H. H., Asthma: Its Patholocrv and Treatment
      (New York: William Wood, 1882).

247.   Schirren, C. G.,  Diacetyl, Allergen Contained in Tobacco
      Smoke,  Wood Smoke and Coffee Aroma, Hautarzt 2:324  (1951).

-------
                                                           135
248.  Schueneman, J. J., M. D. High,  and W.  E.  Bye,  Air Pollu-
      tion Aspects of the Iron and  Steel Industry,  U.  S.  Public
      Health Serv. Publ. 999-AP-l  (1963).

249.  Segeler, G. C., The Gas Industry  and  Its  Contribution to
      Air Pollution Control.  Presented at  the  54th Annual
      Meeting of Air Pollution Control  Association  (June  1961).

250.  Shah, I.. S., Air Pollution -  Pulp Plant Pollution Control,
      Chem. Eng. Progr. 64.(9):66  (1968).

251.  Sinitsyna, E. L., Investigations  Into Certain Aspects of
      the Health of People Working  in the Main  Shops of Tanneries,
      Hycr. Sanitation 30 (6): 336  (1965).

252.  Sinks, F. Ttf.,  Two-Cycle Diesel Odor  Control  - A Progress
      Report,   Presented at Meeting  of Canadian  Transit  Associ-
      ation, Toronto, Canada  (March 1960).

253.  Smith, W. S., Atmospheric Emissions from  Fuel Oil Combustion,
      An Inventory Guide, Environmental Health  Series,  Public
      Health Service, Division of Air Pollution (1962).

254.  Smith, W. S., J. J. Schueneman, and L. D. Zeidberg, Public
      Reaction to Air Pollution in  Nashville, Tennessee,  J.
      Air Pollution Control Asaoxsi at ion 1.4 (10^:418  (Oct. 1964).

255.  Stalker, W. W., Defining the  Odor Problem in  a Community,
      J. Am. Ind. Hycr. Assoc. .24:600  (1963).

256.  Standard Method for Measurement of Odor in  Atmosphere
      (Dilution Method), American Society for Testing  Materials
      Standard Method D 1391-57.

257.  Stayzhkin, V. M., Hygienic Determination  of Limits  of
      Allowable Concentrations of Chlorine  and  Hydrochloride
      Gases Simultaneously Present  in Atmospheric Air,  Translated
      by B. S. Levine, U.S.S.R. Literature  on Air Pollution and
      Related Occupational Diseases 9;55 (1962).

258.  Stern, A. C.  (fid.),  Air Pollution, vol. 1,  2nd ed. (New York:
      Academic Press, pp. 484, 520, 1968).

259.  Stern, A. C.  (Bd.).  Air Pollution, vol.. II, 2nd  ed.  (New
      York:   Academic Press,    p.  325  1968).

-------
                                                         136
260.   Stern,  A. C., (Ed.), Air Pollution, vol. mf 2nd ed.
      (New York:  Academic Press, pp. 91, 114-115,  258-261,
      272-275,280-287,514-515  1968).

261.   Sternberg, L., and A. H. Sorrell, Occupational Asthma
      and Vasomotor Rhinitis, N.Y. State J. Med. 41:1619  (1941).

261a. Stevens,  R. K.,  A. E. O'Keeffe, J. D. Mulik,  and K. J.
      Krost,  Gas Chroraatography of Reactive Sulfur  Gases  in
      Air at the Parts-Per-Billion Level. 1. Direct Chromato-
      graphic Analysis, Preprint.  National Air Pollution
      Control Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio  (1969).

262.   Sticker,  G., Das Heffieber und Verwandte Storungen
      (Vienna:  Holder 1912).

263.   Stockman, R. L., and D. Anderson, Physiologic, Economic,
      and Nuisance Effects of Emissions from Sulfate Pulping
      in Proc.  Intern. Conf. on Atmospheric Emissions from
      Sulfate Pulping, Sanibel Island, Fla. (April  28, 1966).

264.   Stokinger, H. E., and D. L. Coffin, "Biological Effects
      of Air Pollutants," in Air Pollution, vol. 1, 2nd ed.,
      A. C. Stern, Ed.  (New York: Academic Press,  p. 484,
      1968).

265.   Strauss,  W., The Development of a Condenser for Odor Con-
      trol from Dry Rendering Plants, J. Air Pollution Control
      Assoc.  14(10) :424 (1964).

266.   Strimbeck, D. C., Clean Gas From Coal May be  Economical
      Fuel for  Gas Turbines, Power Engineering  (July 1966).

267.   Studies of Potential Exposures of Railroad Trainmen to
      Diesel Exhaust Gases and to Dust from Locomotive Sanders,
      Bureau of Adult Health, California Dept. of Public Health
      (1957).

268.   A Study of Air Pollution in the Interstate Region of
      Lewiston, Idaho, and Clarkston, Washington, Environmental
      Health Series, U. S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati,
      Ohio (Dec. 1964).

269.   Stutz,  C. N., Treating Parathion Wastes, Chem. Eng. Progr,
      62(101)  (1966).

-------
                                                          137
270.  Sullivan, D. C., D. F. Adams,  and F. A. Young,  "Design
      of an Odor Perception and Objectionability  Threshold
      Test Facility" in Atmospheric  Environment,  vol.  2
      (London: Pergairton Press, pp. 121-133,  1968).

271.  Sulzberger, M. D., and R. L. Baer, Office Immunology,
      (Chicago: Year Book Publishers,  1947).

272.  Summer, W., Methods of Air Deodorization.  (Amsterdam:
      Elsevier, 1963).

273.  Survey of Operating Refineries in the  U.S.A., Oil Gas J.
      67.(12) : (1969) .

274.  Sussman, V. H., and J. J. Mulhern, Air Pollution From
      Coal Refuse Disposal Areas, J. Air Pollution Control
      Assoc. 14.(7) : (1964) .

275.  Sutton, R., Discussion to Pels,  Ac ch.  Derm at ol.  Svph.
      16_:639  (1927).

276.  Szentivanyi, A., G. Flipp, and G. Legeza, Investigations
      on Tobacco Sensitivity: Tobacco  Sensitivity as Occupational
      Disease, Acta Med. Hung. 1:175 (1952).

277.  Teller, A. J., Odor Abatement  in the Rendering and Allied
      Industries, J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. 13.(4): 148  (1963).

278.  Teudt, H., Origin in Molecules of Odoriferous Substances,
      Prometheus 30:201  (1919).

279.  Thomas, J. W., and V. P. Wecksten, Allergy  in Relation  to
      the Genito-Urinary Tract, Ann. Allergy 2:396  (1944).

280.  Threshold Limit Values for 1967, Adopted at the  29th Annual
      Meeting of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
      Hygienists, Chicago, 111.  (May 1-2, 1967).

281.  Tkach, N. Z., Combined Effect  of Acetone and Acetophenone
      in the Atmosphere, Gigiena i Sanit. J30(8) :(1965).

-------
                                                          138
282.   Toliver, W. H., Sr., and M. L. Morris,  Chemical  Analysis
      of Permanent and Organic Gases in  a  30-Day Manned Experi-
      ment, AMRL-TR066-13, Aerospace Medical  Research  Labora-
      tories, Aerospace Medical Division,  Wright-Patterson Air
      Force Base, Ohio  (March 1966).

283.   Tschirch, A., Chem. Zentr.  3.:190  (1921).

284.   Turk, A., Odor Control Methods: A  Critical Review,
      Symposium on Odor, Special  Tech. Publ.  No. 164,  American
      Society for Testing Materials, pp. 69-80   (1954).

285.   Turk, A., Selection and Training of  Judges for Sensory
      Evaluation of the Intensity and Character  of  Diesel  Ex-
      haust Odors, City College of the City of New  York.   U.  S.
      Public Health Service Publ. 999-AP-32   (1967).

286.   Ullrich, A. H., and R. J. Ruff, Oxidation  of  Sewage  Odors,
      Water Sewage Works 106;395   (1959).

287.   Ungerer, TV. G., and R. B.   Stoddard, Ungerer' s Bull.  3.(1) :
      7  (1922).

288.   Urbach, E., Odors  (Osmyls)  as Allergenic Agents,  J.  Allergy
      .13:387   (1942).

289.   Veninga, T. S., Toxicity of Ozone  in Comparison  with Ionizing
      Radiation, Strahlentherapie 134(3):469   (1967).

290.   Viessman, TV., Control of Odors in "Working  Environments,
      Occupational Health Rev. 1_7(2):12   (1965).

291.   Viessman, TV., Gaseous Air Pollution  - Its  Sources  and Con-
      trol, Air Eng. 1JD(7):14   (1968).

292.   Von Bergen, J., Latest Methods You Can  Use for Industrial
      Odor Control, Chem. Eng.  (Aug. 1957).

293.   Walsh, R. T., The Inedible  Rendering Industry, Informative
      Report Prepared for the TI-2, Chemical  Industries  Committee
      of the Air Pollution Control Association  (1968).

-------
                                                          139
294.  Weisburd, M. I.  (Ed.) Air Pollution  Control  Field Opera-
      tions Manual, U. S. Public Health  Service, Div.  of Air
      Pollution, Washington, D. C.  (1962).

295.  Welsh, G. B., Air Pollution  in  the National  Capital Area,
      U. S. Public Health Service  Publ.  955  (1962).

296.  "Wenzel, H. F. J., and O. U.  Ingruber,  Controlling Problems
      of Air and "Water Contamination,  Paper  Trade  J. pp. 42-47
      (Jan. 16, 1967).

297.  Wetmiller, R. S., and L. E.  Endsley, Effect  of Diesel
      Fuel on Exhaust Smoke and Odor,  Soc. Automotive  Engrs.
      J. (Dec. 1942).

298.  "Wilby, F. V., Variation in Recognition Odor  Threshold of
      a Panel, J. Air Pollution Control  Assoc.  12(2):96  (1969).

299.  "Williams, A. F., Oil Firing  and Odour  Problems,  Presented
      to the S.V.M.T. Meeting, Zurich, on  September 11,  1964,
      Esso Research Limited, Abingdon, England   (1964).

300.  Winslow, C. E. A., and L. P.  Herrington,  Am. J.  Hyg.
      Z3:143   (1936).

301.  Winslow, C. E. A., and G. T.  Palmer, Proc. Soc.  Exptl.
      Biol. Med. 21:141   (1915).

302.  WMAL News Broadcast, "Washington, D.  C. (May  24,  1969).

303.  Wohlbier, F. H., and G. W. P. Rengstorff,  Preliminary
      Study of Gas Formation During Blast-Furnace  Slag Granu-
      lation with "Water.  Presented at the Annual  Meeting of
      the Air Pollution Control Association  (June  26,  1968).

304.  Woker, G., The Relations Between Structure and Smell in
      Organic Compounds, J. Phvs.  Chem.  JLO.:455   (1906).

305.  Wright, R. H., Odour and Chemical  Constitution,  Nature
      3/71:831   (1954).

306.  Wright, R. H., Molecular Structure and Organoleptic Quality,
      Soc. of Chem. Ind.  (London)  Monograph  1;  91  (1957).

-------
                                                          140
307.   Wright, R0 H., Nature 1^8:783   (1963).

308.   Yaakmees, V. A., The Establishment of the Maximum  Per-
      missible Concentration of Shale Gasoline in  the Atmo-
      sphere, Hyg. Sanitation 31 (1,2.3):295   (1966).

309.   Young, H. D., Diesel Engine Exhaust  Smoke as Influenced
      by Fuel Characteristics.  Presented  at  the Society of
      Automotive Engineers Annual Meeting, Detroit, Mich.
      (1948).

310.   Zakon, S. J., and J. B. Kahn, Urticaria from Perfumes,
      Arch. Dermatol. Syph. .52:11   (1945).

311.   Zohn, B., An Unusual Case of Spinach Hypersensitiveness,
      J. Allergy 8:381   (1937).

312.   Zwaardemaker, H., Fortschritte der Medicin 19:721   (1889),

313.   Zwaardemaker, H., Odeur et chimisme. Arch. Neerl.  Physiol,
      6:336   (1922).

-------
                                                          141
OTHER REFERENCES

Adams,  D. F., European Air Pollution,  1964,  J.  Air Pollution
Control Assoc. 15.(8):375  (1965).

Adams,  D. F., A Survey of European  Kraft Mill Odor Reduction
System,  Tappi 48(5);83A  (1965).

Adams,  D. F., and R. K. Koppe, An Air  Quality Study in the
Vicinity of Lewiston, Idaho  and Clarkston, Washington,  J.  Air
Pollution Control Assoc. JJ5.(6):314  (1966).

Adams,  D. F., and F. A. Young, Kraft Odor Detection and Objection-
ability Thresholds.  Preprint  (1965).

Albinus, G., Reducing the Emission  of  Small  Waste Incinerators
by Structural and Control Measures, Staub 25(11):17 (1965).

Apartment House Incinerators,  Rept. No.  29 to the Federal
Housing Administration, Natl.  Acad. Sci.  - Natl.  Res.  Council
Publ. 1280, Washington, D. C.  (1965).

Banner,  A. P-, and  E. M. Ilgenfritz, Disposal of  Coal  Tar  Pitch
Distillate Obtained from Carbon Baking Furnace by Catalytic
Combustion, .Air Pollution Control Association Meeting  (June  1963).

Barnebey, H. L., Removal of  Exhaust Odors from Solvent Extraction
Operation by Activated Charcoal Adsorption,  J.  Air Pollution
Control Assoc. 15 (9):422  (1965).

Bethge,  O., and L.  Ehrenborg,  Identification of Volatile Com-
pounds in Kraft Mill Emissions, Svensk Papperstid. J70:347  (1967).

Betz, E., Odour Control by Catalytic Combustion,  Proc.  Clean
Air Conf. 1965. London, England, Oct.  26-29,  1965.

Bolduc,  M. J., R. K. Severs, and G. L. Brewer,  Test Procedures
for Evaluation of Industrial Fume Converters,  Air Enq.  8.(2) :
20 (1966).

Bovier,  R. F., et al., Solving a Valley  Air  Pollution  Problem.
Presented at the 54th Annual Meeting,  Air Pollution Control
Association, New York, June  15, 1961.

-------
                                                          142
Brewer. G. L., Odor Control for Kettle  Cooking,  J.  Air Pollution
Control Assoc. 13r167  (1963).

Brink, D. L., J. F. Thomas, and D.  L. Feuerstein, Malodorous
Products from the Combustion of Kraft Black  Liquor.  II.
Analytical Aspects, Tappi  50(6):276 (1967).

Brink, D. L., J. F. Thomas, and K.  H. Jones,  Malodorous  Products
from the Combustion of Kraft Black  Liquor, III.   A  Rationale
for Controlling Odors, University of California,  Forest  Products
Laboratory and Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory,  Richmond,
Calif.  (1967).

Buxton, Ttf. H., and M. W. Lapointe,  Chemical  Recovery and Odor
Abatement on a Kraft Recovery Furnace,  Tappi 48(5):112A (1965).

Cady, F. H., A Kraft Mill "Waste Chlorine  Gas Recovery Scrubber.
Presented at the Second Annual Meeting, Pacific  Northwest
International Section, Air Pollution Control Association,
Portland, Oreg.  (Nov. 5-6, 1964).

Cave, G. C. B., The Collection  and  Analysis  of Odorous Gases
From Kraft Pulp Mills, Part I: Theoretical Considerations,
Tappi 46(1) :1  (1963).

Cave, G. C. B., The Collection  and  Analysis  of Odorous Gases
From Kraft Pulp Mills, Part II: A Laboratory Study  of the
Collection of Pollutants for Analysis,  Tappi 46 (1):5 (1963).

Cave, G. C. B., The Collection  and  Analysis  of Odorous Gases
From Kraft Pulp Mills, Part III: The Analysis of Collected
Pollutants by Gas Chromatography, Tappi 46(1);11 (1963).

Cave, G. C. B., The Collection  and  Analysis  of Odorous Gases
From Kraft Pulp Mills, Part IV: A Field Kit  for  the  Collection
of the Pollutants, and Methods  for  Their  Analysis,  Tappi
46(1):15  (1963).

Cederlof, R., et_ al., On the Determination of Odor  Thresholds
Air Pollution Control—An Experimental  Field Study  on Flue
Gases From Sulfate Cellulose Plants, J. Air  Pollution Control
Assoc. 16(2):92  (1966).

-------
                                                          143
Challis,  J. A., Three Industrial Incineration  Problems,  1966
Natl. Incinerator Conf. Proc., pp. 208-218  (1966).

Chizhikov, V.A.,  Production of Certain Pathological Manifestations
as a Conditioned Reflex Induced by Exposure  to Low  Concen-
trations of Toxic Substances, Hyg. Sanitation  32(4,5.6):323
(1967).

Collins,  T. T., Jr., New Systems Proposed for  Kraft Mill  Odor
Control and Heat Recovery, Paper Trade J. p. 34  (1965).

A Compilation of Ambient Air Quality  Standards and  Objectives,
U. S. Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio  (1966).

Cook County Air Pollution Control Ordinance, The Air Pollution
Control Bureau, Chicago, 111.  (April  30, 1963).

DeHaas, G. G., and L. C. Amos, Recovery Systems for Mixed Kraft
and Sulfite Liquors, Tappi 50(3):75A  (1967).

Devorkin, H., et al., Source Testing  Manual, Air Pollution
Control District, County of Los Angeles  (1965).

Douglass, I. B., Some Chemical Aspects of Kraft Odor Control,
Paper No. 67-110, University of Maine, Orono,  Maine (1967).

Douglass, I. B., The Chemistry of Pollutant  Formation  in  Kraft
Pulping,  in Proc. Intern. Conf. on Atmospheric Emissions  from
Sulfate Pulping. Sanibel Island, Fla.  (April 28, 1966).

Dravnieks, A., B. Krotoszynski, and J. Stockham, Sampling and
Measurement of Odorous Gaseous Pollutants in Industrial  Exhaust
and Air,  IIT Research Institute, Chicago, 111.

Duerden,  C., A Problem of Fume Emission, Public Health Inspector
(London)  J74:21  (1965).

Eliminating Smell from a Refinery, Petroleum  (London)  29_(4) :
148  (1966).

Feuerstein, D. L., J. F. Thomas, and  D. L. Brink, Malodorous
Products from the Combustion of Kraft Black  Liquor. I. Pyrolysis
and Combustion Aspects, Tappi 50(6);258  (1967).

-------
                                                          144
Fiske, P. R., City's Plans  to  Sweeten Air  Are Rendered Useless,
Washington Post, "Washington, D.  C.  (April  10,  1969).

Frye, C. G., and J. F. Mosby,  "Kinetics  of Hydrodesulfurization,"
Chem. Encr. Progr. £3(9) :66  (1967).

Gas Chromatography Applied  to  Atmospheric  Kraft Odors,  Final
Report, Grant No. AP-00023,  College  of Engineering Research
Division, Washington State  University, Pullman,  "Wash.  (Oct. 28,
1966) .

Gasteiger, E. L., and S. A.  Helling,  X-ray Detection by the
Olfactory System: Ozone  as  a Masking Odor ant,  Science  1J54:1038
 (1966).

The Greater Johnstown Air Pollution  Survey,  Pennsylvania Dept.
of Health, Div. of Air Pollution Control (June 22,  1966).

Gumerman, R. C.f and D.  A.  Carlson,  Methyl Mercaptan Removal by
Soil Filtration.  Presented at the Annual  Meeting of the Pacific
Northwest International  Section,  Air Pollution Control Associa-
tion, Vancouver, B. C.  (Nov. 2-4, 1965).

Harkness, A. C., and F.  E.  Murray, Gas Phase Oxidation of Methyl
Mercaptan, Intern. J. Air "Water Pollution 10:245 (1966).

Harris, L. S., Fume Scrubbing  with the Ejector Venturi System,
Chem. Encr. Progr. 62.(4):55  (1966).

Harris, R. L., Jr., Public  Health Service  Air Pollution Abatement
Activities.  Presented at the  Air Pollution Control Association
Central Section Meeting, Cincinnati,  Ohio  (Sept. 28-30,  1966).
Henshaw,  T.  B.,  Odor Control at a 2,4-D Production Plant, Chipman
Chemical  Co.,  Inc.,  Portland,  Oregon.  Presented at the Air
Pollution Control Association,  Pacific Northwest International
Section,  Portland,  Oreg.  (Nov.  6, 1964).


Hildebrandt,  P.  W.,  and R.  L.  Stockman, Air Quality in Clark
County, Washington,  Air Sanitation and Radiation Control Section,
Div.  of Environmental Health,  State of Washington Dept. of
Health (1965).

-------
                                                          145
Hochheiser, S., S. W. Horstman,  and  G.  H.  Tate,  Jr.,  A Pilot
Study of Air Pollution in Birmingham, Alabama,  U.  S.  Public
Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio (May 1962).

Holland, H. R., Air Quality Control  by  Petroleum Refiners.
Presented at the Annual Meeting,  Pacific  Northwest International
Section of the Air Pollution Control Association,  Vancouver,
B. C.  (Nov. 2, 1965) .

Honma, M., and E. H. Kawasaki,  Thermal  Degradation of Polymeric
Materials. II. Toxicity Evaluations  of  Some Gases  Evolving
from Epon 828 + LP 33 Composite Polymer,  Lockheed  Missiles  and
Space Div,, Sunnyvale, Calif.  (1961).

HPAC Engineering Data File, Industrial  Air Pollution  Control,
Heating, Piping Air Conditioning, p. 179  (March 1967).

Huey, N.  A., L. C. Broering,  and C. W. Gruber,  Odor  Measurement
Techniques, II, U. S. Public Health  Service,  Community Air
Pollution Demonstration Project Grant A-59-541,  Second Year
Final Report  (Dec. 1959).

Huguet, J. H., et al., Africa,  J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.
16.(11):574 (1966).

Hurn, R. W.,  and D. E. Seizinger,  Air  Pollutant Inventory  Enter
the Diesel,  Proc. Am. Petrol.  Inst. .45(111): 127  (1965).

Intensities of Odors and Irritating  Effects of  Warning Agents
for Inflammable and Poisonous  Gases, U. S. Bureau  of  Mines,
Tech. Paper 480  (1930).

Johnson, E.,  Nuisance from External  Environmental  Factors and
Norms for Their Evaluation, Nord. Hyg.  Tidskr. XLIV:69 (1963).

Kendall, D. A., and A. J. Neilson, Odor Profile Studies of
Effluent Waste Waters from Seven Refineries,  Proc.  Am.  Petrol.
Inst. 44(3) :62  (1964).

Klisenko, M.  A., et al.,The Determination  of  Phthalophos and
Phozalon in Air, Hyg-. Sanitation 32 (7. 8, 9) ; 232  (1967).

Knott, K. H., and S. Turkolmez,  Krupp Rotary  Brush Scrubber for
the Control of Gas Vapour, Mist and  Dust  Emissions, Krupp Tech.
Rev. 24(1) :25  (1966).

-------
                                                          146
Koppe, R. K., and D. F. Adams, Gas-Phase  Chlorination of Kraft
Pulp Mill Gases, Tappi 51 (5)t!93  (1968).

Kosmodamianskays, D. M., Effect of Atmospheric  Pollution Upon
The Population's Health, Hyg. Sanitation  33 (1.2.3):265 (1968).

Landry, J. E., Black Liquor  Oxidation  Practice  and  Development—
A Critical Review, Tappi 46(12):766  (1963).

Larsen, R. I., "Future Air Quality Standards  and Industrial
Control Requirements," in Proceedings  of  the  Third  National
Conference on Air Pollution. Washington,  D. C.  (Dec.  12-14,
1966).

Lenz, W., and A. Tirado, Mexico Kraft  Mill Uses Observers to
Check Its Odor Control Program, Paper  Trade J.  (1966).

Lindvall, T.,  Bestamming av luktande  luftfororeningar,   Nord.
Hyg. Tidskr. 47(2) :41  (1966).

Lloyd, D. H., A Note on Factory Process Smells  and  Toxic Hazards,
Sheet Metal Ind. 44(481):311 (1967).

Longwell, D. H., The National Council  for Stream Improvement,
Air Pollution Studies.  Presented at the  Air  Pollution Control
Association Pacific Northwest International Section,  Oregon
State Univ.  (Nov. 8, 1964).

Ludwig, J. H., Status of Vehicle Emissions in Air Pollution.
Presented at the Eighth .Annual Environmental  Health Institute
sponsored by the Colorado Association  of  Sanitarians,  Denver,
Col.  (April 26, 1963).

Ludwig, J. H., Seminar on Air Pollution by Motor Vehicles,
Division of Air Pollution, U. S. Public Health  Service,  Cincinnati,
Ohio  (1964).

Matteson, M. J., L. N. Johanson, and J. L. McCarthy,  Sekor II:
Stream Stripping of Volatile Organic Substances from  Kraft Pulp
Mill Effluent Streams, Tappi 50 (2):86  (1967).

Mazitova, R. M., et_al., Olfactory Sense  and  Its Simulation by
Modeling, Joint Publication  Research Service  38:994,  U.  S.
Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.  (1966).

-------
                                                           147
McCabe,  L.  C.,  and J.  S. Lagarias,  Air Pollution and the Paint
Industry,"  J.  Paint Technol. 3.8(495) :210  (1966).

McKean,  W.  T.,  Jr.,  B. F. Hrutfiord, and K. V. Sarkanen, Kinetic
Analysis of Odor Formation in the Kraft Pulping Process, Tappi
48(12):699  (1965).

McKee,  J. E.,  Air Pollution Control - Economic Impact of Grow-
ing Problem,  Trust and Estates Magazine (Feb. 1964).

Middleton,  J.  T., Future Air Quality Standards and Motor Vehicle
Emission Restrictions.  Presented at the National Conference
on Air  Pollution, Washington, D. C.  (Dec. 12-14, 1966).

Morrow,  P.  E.,  Adaptations of the Respiratory Tract to Air
Pollutants,  A.M.A. Arch. Environ. Health 14:127  (1967).

MP&E's  Guide to Air Pollution Control Methods, Mod. Power
    [.  6.(6):63 (1966).
 Murray, F. E., The  Control  of Kraft Mill Odors,  Occupational
 Rev.   (Ottawa) .17(2) :23 (1963).

 Odor  Control  for Kettle Cooking, J. Air Pollution Control
 Assoc.  11:167 (1963).

"Odors Associated with  Atmospheric Particulate Matter," in
 Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, U. S. Public
 Health  Service,  National Air Pollution Control Administration,
 Washington, D.  C.  (1969).

 Ono,  S.,  Odor Produced and Its Control by Wet Scrubbing in Night
 Soil  Treatment Plant,  Trans. Soc. Heating, Air Conditioning
 Sanitary  Encr. (Japan)  3.:42  (1965).

 Patty,  F.  A., "Sampling and Analysis of Contaminants," in
 Industrial Hygiene  and Toxicology, 2nd ed.  (New York: Inter-
 science,  p. 174, 1963).

 Petri,  H., The Effects of Hydrogen Sulfide and Carbon Bisulfide,
 Staub 21(2) :64  (1961).

 Phelps, A0 H.,  Jr., and J0  F. Byrd, Odor and the Socially Accept-
 able  Industry.   Presented at Symposium on Industrial Air Pollution
 Control,  Part 1, 59th  Annual Meeting, Detroit, Mich.  (Dec. 4-8,
 1966).

-------
                                                          148
A Pilot Study of Air Pollution in Jacksonville,  Florida,
August to September 1961, U. S. Public  Health Service,
Cincinnati, Ohio  (1962).

Porter, E. V., An Odor Survey of the Two  Kansas  Cities,  A
Cooperative Study by the Cities of Kansas City,  Kansas,  and
Kansas City, Missouri, and the U. S. Dept.  of Health,  Educa-
tion and "Welfare  (1965) .

Reckner, L. R., et al., Progress Report on  Diesel  Exhaust
Composition, Odor and Eye Irritation, for Period May 1,  1962
to February 15, 1963, Scott Research Laboratories,  Inc.,
Perkasie, Pa. and San Bernardino, Calif.  (March  1963) .

Reckner, L. R., et al., Final Report on Diesel Exhaust,  Compo-
sition, Odor and Eye Irritation, for Period December 3,  1965 to
December 2, 1966, Scott Research Laboratories, Inc.,  Perkasie,
Pa. (1967).

Regulation and Control of Air Pollutants  from the  Stock  Yards
Area,  Department of Air Pollution Control,  City  of Chicago,
Chicago, 111.

Rendering Plant Flow Sheet, Process Flow  Sheets  and Air  Pollu-
tion Controls, American Conference of Governtmental Industrial
Hygienists, Committee on Air Pollution  (1961).

Rendering Plants, Information Bulletin  No.  1A, Oregon State
Sanitary Authority, Oregon State Board  of Health (Oct. 1964).

Rihm,  A., Jr., New York State's Ambient Air Quality Objectives
System.  Presented at National Power Conference  of the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, Albany,  N.  Y.  (Sept.  20,  1965) .

Riverside County, Air Pollution Control District,  Rules  and
Regulations, Chapter 2, Division 20, Health and  Safety Code of
the State of California  (1962).

Romano, A. H., and R. S. Safferman, Studies on Actinomytes and
Their  Odors, J. Am. Water Works Assoc.  J55(2):169 (1963).

Rosen,  A. A., R. T. Skeel, and M. B. Ettinger, Relationship of
River  "Water Odor to Specific Organic Contaminants,  J. "Water
Pollution Control Federation 35(6):777  (1963).

-------
                                                          149
Rose, A. H., Jr., Diesel Smoke  Problem.   Presented at the 1963
Metropolitan Conference on Air  Pollution  Control,  Cincinnati,
Ohio  (Oct. 22, 1963).

Ryazanov, V. A.,  "A Summary of  1961  Studies  in the Field of
Limits of Allowable Concentrations of Atmospheric  Air Pollutants,"
in Limits of Allowable Concentrations of  Atmospheric Pollutants,
Book 7, Washington, D. C.  (1963-64).

Sableski, J. J_,  Community Odor Surveys and  Evaluation.
Presented at the  Mid-Atlantic States Section Meeting,  Air
Pollution Control Association,  Wilmington, Del.  (Nov.  1965).

Safferman, R. S., e t al., Earthy-Smelling Substance from a
Blue-Green Alga,  Environ. Sci.  Technol. l.(5):429 (1967).

Salzenstein, M. A., Industrial  Performance Standards for Zoning
a Current Review, Paper No. 65-12, Polytechnic Inc.,  Chicago,
111.

Sanderson, H. P., P. Bradt, and M. Katz,  A Study of Air  Pollu-
tion in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.   Presented at 58th
Annual Meeting, Air Pollution Control Association,  Toronto,
Canada  (June 20-24, 1965).

Sanderson, H. P., R. Thomas, and M. Katz,  Limitations of the
Lead Acetate Impregnated Paper  Tape Method for Hydrogen  Sulfide,
J. Air Pollution  Control Assoc.  16_(6):328 (1966).

Sarkanen, K. V.,  Effect of New Process Technology on Air Pollu-
tion Potential,   Proc. Intern.  Conf. on  Atmospheric Emissions
from Sulfate Pulping, Sanibel Island, Fla.  (April  28,  1966).

Schneider, R. A., The Sense of  Smell in Man—Its Physiologic
Basis, New Engl.  J. Med, 2T7(6):299  (1967).

Schneider, R. A., C. E. Schmidt, and J. P. Costiloe,  Relation
of Odor Flow Rate and Duration  of Stimulus Intensity Needed for
Perception, J. Appl. Physiol. 21.(1):10  (1966).

Schueneman, J. J., and C. G. Beard, II, Charleston-Kanawha
Valley Air Pollution Study—A Description.   Presented at the
55th National Meeting, American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
Houston, Tex.  (Feb. 7-11, 1965).

-------
                                                          150
 Schueneman, J.  J.,  D.  R.  Goodwin,  and S. T. Cuffe, How the
 Federal Government  Looks  at Air Pollution, Mod. Castings
 47.: 43  (1965).

 Shah,  I.  S., New Flue-Gas Scrubbing System Reduces Air Pollu-
 tion,  Chem. Eng.  .74(7) :84 (1967).

 Springer, K. J.,  Investigation of  Diesel Powered Vehicle Odor
 and Smoke, Part 2,  Monthly Progress Report No. 3, for the
 period March 15 - April 15,  1967.   Southwest Research Institute,
 San Antonio, Tex.  (May 3,  1967).

 Springer, K. J.,  Investigation of  Diesel Powered Vehicle Odor
 and Smoke, Part 2,  Monthly Progress Report No. 4, for the
 period April 15,  1967  - May 15,  1967.   Southwest Research
 Institute, San  Antonio, Tex.  (May  26,  1967).

 Springer, K. J.,  and R. C.  Stahman,  An Investigation of Diesel
 Powered Vehicle Odor and  Smoke,  A  Progress Report,  National
 Petroleum Refiners  Association.  Presented at the Fuels and
 Lubricants Meeting, Philadelphia,  Pa.  (Sept. 15-16,  1966).

 Squires, A. M., Air Pollution:   The Control of SO2  From Power
 Stacks.  Part IV: Power Generation with Clean Fuels,  Chem.
     74(26) :101 (1967).
Status of Present Investigations  and  Future  Research Needs in
Atmospheric Pollution Control, Atmospheric Pollution Technical
Bulletin No. 29, National Council  for Stream Improvement,  New
York, N. Y.  (1966).

Stenburg, R. L., Atmospheric Emissions from  Paint  and Varnish
Operations.  Part 1, Paint Varnish Prod. ^9:61  (1959).

Strauss, W., Odour Control for the Process Industries,  Chem
Process Eng. 46(3);133  (1965).

Suggested Construction  and Operational Techniques  for the  Devel-
opment of Good Sanitation Practices in Texas Rendering Plants,
Texas State Department  of Health,  Austin, Tex.  (1952).

Sullivan, J. L., F. L.  Kafka, and  L.  M. Ferrari, An  Evaluation
of Catalytic and Direct Fired Afterburners for  Coffee and  Chicory
Roasting Odors, J. Air  Pollution Control Assoc. _15_(12):583 (1965).

-------
                                                          151
Sullivan, J. H., D. H. Robertson,  and C. Merritt,  Jr.,  The
Determination of the Volatile Components of  Foodstuffs.   III.
Coffee Aroma, Quartermaster Research and Engineering  Center,
Natick, Mass. (1959).

Summer, W., Odour Destruction, J.  Inst. Heating Ventilating
Engrs. .34:229 (1966).

Suzuki, Y., K. Nishiyama, and M. Oe, Studies on the Prevention
of Public Nuisance by the Exhaust  Gases from the Kraft  Pulp
Mill, Tokushima J. Exptl. Med. 1^:120  (1964).

Tarkhova, L. P., Materials for Determining the Maximum  Per-
missible Concentration of Chlorobenzol in Atmospheric Air,
Hyg. Sanitation 30:327  (1965).

Thoen, G. N., et al., Effect of Combustion Variables  on  the
Release of Odorous Compounds from  a Kraft Recovery Furnace,
Tappi 51(8);329  (1968).

Thomas, E., S. Broaddus, and E. W. Ramsdell,  Air Pollution
Abatement at S. D. Warren's Kraft  Mill in Westbrook,  Me.,
Tappi 50(8) ;81A  (1967).

Thomas, M. D., "The Present Status of the Development of Instru-
mentation for the Study of Air Pollution," in Proc. 2nd  Natl.
Air Pollution Symp.  (1952).

Tucker, D., Physical Variables in  the Olfactory Stimulation
Process, J. Gen. Phvsiol. 46_(3):453  (1963).

Turk, A., Approaches to Sensory Odor Measurement,  Ann. N.  Y.
Ac ad. Sci. 116_: 564 (1964).

Turk, A., Measuring and Controlling Odors, Heating. Piping Air
Conditioning 40(1):201  (1968).

Vaughn, J. C., Tastes and Odors in Water Supplies, Environ. Sci.
Technol. 1(9):703  (1967).

Venezia, R. A., The Interstate Air Pollution Study, St.  Louis-
East St. Louis Metropolitan Area,  Presented at the Missouri
Public Health Association Convention, Kansas City, Mo.  (May 11,
1965).

-------
                                                          152
Witheridge, W. N.,  "Ventilation,"  in  Industrial  Hygiene and
Toxicology, 2nd ed., F. A. Patty,  Ed.   (New York:  Interscience,
1963).

Wohlers, H. C., Recommended  Procedures  for  Measuring Odorous
Contaminants in the Field, J.  Air  Pollution Control Assoc.
17.(9):609  (1967).

Wright, R. H., New  Work in Kraft Mill Odor  Control, J.  Air
Pollution Control Assoc.  13(3):101 (1963).

-------
APPENDIX  A

-------
APPENDIX A
153
                            FIGURE 1




                       Odor Quality Chart  96

-------
APPENDIX A
                                                           154
                              FIGURE 2




       Location of Kraft Mills in the United States (1957)141

-------
APPENDIX A
                                                                   155
      ro
      O
      +-*
      c
      
-------
APPENDIX B

-------
APPENDIX  B                                                     156
                              TABLE 1




     REPORTED ODOR THRESHOLD CONCENTRATIONS OF HYDROGEN  SULFIDE
ppm
0.0011
0.13-1.0
0.0047 (from Na2S)
0.00047 (gas)
0.0072
0.072
^q/m3
1.5
180-1,400
6.5
0.65
10
100
Reference
125
294
134
134
254
4

-------
APPENDIX B
                                       157
                                TABLE 2

                RECOGNITION ODOR  THRESHOLD OF ODORANTS154
Odorant
                                   ppm
Acetaldehyde

Acetephenone

Acetic acid

Acetone

Acrolein


Acrylonitrile

"Aktol"

Allyl alcohol

Allyl amine

Allyl chloride

Allyl disulfide

Allyl isocyanide

Allyl isothiocyanate

Allyl mercaptan

Allyl sulfide

Amine dimethyl

Amine monomethyl

Amine trimethyl

Ammonia

Amyl acetate
380U, 130V, 400f

10d



100d; 770,000a

820V; 4,500V; 3,5003;
52Ov; 800d; 38,000f



10,000f

17,000f

67,000f



100f; 0.073

4,300f

l,700f

500f, 0.153

5 Of
  ^; 500d;  37,000f

600d'f
0.066m, 0.21U,  0.21
0.07V, 0.07
1.0

100.0, 320a

1.8r'v, 0.21,  0.33V
1.53. 0.21V

1.56n, 21.4
6.2m

0.47

0.00013
0.000053,  0.0015



0.047

0.021

0.00021

0.0373; 46.8  53n
                 m
                                                             (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                                158
                          TABLE 2 (Continued)
                RECOGNITION  ODOR THRESHOLD OF ODORANTS
Odorant
                                   ppm
Amyl  alcohol




Amyl  isovalerate  (iso)




Amyl  mereaptan  (iso)




Amyl  sulfide (iso)




Amylene




Amylenes and pentenes




Anethole




Aniline




Apiole




Arsine





Benzaldehyde




Benzene




Benzyl chloride




Benzyl mercaptan




Benzyl sulfide





Bromacetone




Bromacetophenone




Bromine




Bromoform




i-Butanol
35,000a




800f




300f





300f





6,600f










140°




37 Od




571
3,000f;  430°





180,000a




l,600f





190f




600f





500f





640f
10a
1.8°










1.0




0.0063J




0.5r





1.3f, 0.042m





3.0°, 4.68,  60a




0.047




0.0026m




0.0021
120,000C
0.047




5301




40a
                                                              (continued)

-------
APPENDIX  B
                                                                159
                         TABLE  2  (Continued)
                RECOGNITION ODOR  THRESHOLD OF ODORANTS
Odorant
                                    ppm
1-Butanol

n-Butanol
n-Butyl  acetate
i-Butyl  acetate
n-Butyl  formate

i-Butyl  mercaptan

n-Butyl  raercaptan

n-Butyl  sulfide

t-Butyl  mercaptan

Butylene (beta)

Butylene (gamma)

Butyric  acid

Camphor

Carbon disulfide


Carbon monoxide

Carbon tetrachloride
 (Chlorination of CS3 )

Carbon tetrachloride
 (Chlorination of CH4)

Carvone

Chloracetophenone
33,000a

35,000a

17,000a
70,000a
40,000b;  l,400f

l,100f



59,000f

50,000f

1J

10,OOQJ

80-500Y;  2,300^, 50d;
2,600f

d
1,260,000C
5506
8,500"
LOOP



7a 0.6C
4a
17a

0.00097s

0.00072s



0.00009s
1.6, 120

0.21, 0.77^
                         21.4
100.0,  200C
                                                             (continued)

-------
APPENDIX  B
                                                               160
                         TABLE  2  (Continued)





                RECOGNITION ODOR  THRESHOLD OF ODORANTS
Odor ant
Chloral
Chlorine
Chlorobenzil
Chlorophenol
Chloropicrin
Chloroprene
B-Chlorvinyld i-
chlorarsine
Chromium (hexavalent)
Citral
Coumarine
m-Cresol
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
Creosote
Crotonald ehyd e
Crotyl mercaptan
Cyclohexanol
Cyanogen chloride
Cyclohexanone
Hg/m3

0.01J; l,000d; 10,000f
400d
180f
7,300f
400d
14,000f
d
300°
340f


900°

21,000f
29f
d
2,500f
d
ppm
0.047
29^, 0.314, 3.5r








0.25P
0.26P

0.031n


1601


                                                             (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                       161
                         TABLE 2 (Continued)
                RECOGNITION  ODOR THRESHOLD OF  ODORANTS
Odor ant
                                   ppm
Cycloheptanone

Diacetyl

Dichlordiethyl sulfide

1,2 -Dichloro ethane

Dichlorethylene  (trans)

Diethyl disulfide

Diethyl ketone

Diethyl sulfide

Diethyl trisulfide

Diketene

Dimethyl ami ne

Dimethylac et amid e

Dimethyl disulfide

Dimethyl formamide

Dimethyl sulfide


Dimethyl trisulfide

Dimethyl trithio-
 carbonate

Dinitro-o-cresol
88J

l,300f

450,000a;  23,200d

4,300f



33,000a
19
  ,d
1,100J
88 Oc
ISO3
                         1301

                         0.025J



                         110a



                         .0046



                         0.003k,  .0059e

                         .00085e



                         0.6^

                         46.8

                         .0076°
                         100.0
                         0.004k,
                         0.02J
                         .0014*
                                  .0025  ,  0.001,
                                                              (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                       162
                          TABLE 2 (Continued)
                RECOGNITION ODOR THRESHOLD  OF  ODORANTS
Odorant
                                   ppm
Dinyl

Dioxane

Diphenyl chlorarsine

Diphenyl ether
 (perfume grade)

Diphenyl cyanarsine

Diphenyl oxide

Diphenyl sulfide

Diphenylamine
 chlorarsine

Diphosgene

Di-n-propyl sulfide

Di-i-propyl sulfide

Dithio-ethylene glycol

Epichlorohyd rin

Ethanol (synthetic)

Ethyl acetate

Ethyl acrylate

Ethyl dichlorarsine

Ethyl glycol
80°

620,000'

300f

69f


300f

69°

48f

2,500f


8,800f
     f
1,600
300C
93C
600d; 180,000a
1,000J
90,000C
170C
0.1
0.0047
                         .023e,  0.01k
                         .0038e
10.0, 50C

50a

0.00047



25a
                                                              (continued )

-------
APPENDIX  B
                                                                163
                         TABLE 2 (Continued)
                RECOGNITION  ODOR THRESHOLD OF  ODORANTS
Odorant
                                    ppm
Ethyl isothiocyanate

Ethyl mere apt an


Ethyl methyl  disulfide

Ethyl selenide

Ethyl seleno  mercaptan

Ethyl sulfide

Ethylene  dichloride

Ethylene  oxide

Eugenol

Fluorides

Formaldehyde


Furfural

Gasoline

Gasoline  (thermal
 cracked)

Gasoline-shale

Heptane

n-Heptyl  alcohol
                         38,000f

                         30,000b; 190f f 0.04^
62f,
1.8f, 0.008^

250f, 0.92J

25,000f

l,500d

3,900°
1,200U;
72-1083

l,000d
                                     ; 70d;
                         300bb

                         930,000a
                         0.002k,  0,0033k,  0.001,
                         .0004s,  0.000016^
                                                  .014e

                                                  0.000062J

                                                  0.0000018^, 0.00030m

                                                  0.00025^
0.06-0. 09s, 1.0,  1.0U,
                                                  0.4-6.6
                                                  10. Oc
                                                         s'k
                         3.120


                         0.3d

                         22 Oa

                         201
                                                       n
                                                              (continued)

-------
APPENDIX  B
                                                                 164
                          TABLE 2 (Continued)

                RECOGNITION ODOR THRESHOLD  OF ODORANTS
Odorant
                                    ppm
Hexamethy 1 ened i ami n e

Hydrochloric acid gas

Hydrogen chloride

Hydrogen cyanide

Hydrogen fluoride

Hydrogen selenide

Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
 (from Na3S)

Hydrogen sulfide gas

15-Hydroxy
 Pentadecanoic acid
 lactone

lodoform

lonone

Isopropyl benzene

Isoamyl isovalerate

Isoborhylacetate

Isopropyl hydro-
 peroxide

Lead
100d

l,000f

30d

1,0003

14-30aa;  12-302; 1.53;
10d; l,100f
6.13

0.0046J

60d

800°

440°

30d
                          10.0
0.33
    , O.OOllO3,
0.13-1.0n

0.0047


0.00047


2701


0.00037^

0.000000059-J

0.029d
                                                              (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                       165
                          TABLE 2 (Continued)
                RECOGNITION ODOR THRESHOLD OF ODORANTS
Odorant
                                                            ppm
Lead sulfide




Linalyl acetate




Maleic anhydride





Mercury




Methanol




Methyl acetate





Methyl anthranilate




Methyl chloride




Methyl dichlorarsine




Methyl ethyl ketone





Methyl formate





Methyl glycol




Methyl isobutyl ketone





Methyl mereaptan







Methyl methacrylate




Methyl n-nonyl ketone





Methyl propyl ketone




Methyl salicylate
     ,d
1,000'
d
7,800,000a;  4,300d
500d; 550,000a





370f










800f





80,000a





5,000,000a





190,000a





32,000a
l,100f;
27, 000C
120,000L
                         10
100.0; 5,900a





200a










(Above 10 ppm)









10.0, 25a





2,000a





60a
0.47, 8
       , 0.04\  0.04im,
                         0.0021,  .00099s
                         0.21
                         500
8
                                                              (continued)

-------
APPENDIX  B
                                        166
                         TABLE 2 (Continued)
                RECOGNITION ODOR THRESHOLD  OF ODORANTS
Odorant
                                                            ppm
Methyl  sulfide

Methyl  thiocyanate

Methylene chloride

Mineral spirits

Monochlorobenzene

Musk,  synthetic

Nitrobenzene

Nitrogen dioxide

Nitrogen oxides

Octane

Oxidized oils

Ozone
Paracresol

Paraxylene

Perchloroethylene

Phenol

Phenyl  isocyanide

Phenyl  isothiocyanate
l,100r

9,600

550,000a

150,000a



0.005^

18. 2d;  30,000f



d

710,000a

     f
l,100
     ; l,000
1,20CP;  184C
29f
2,400J
214.0,  150

30a

0.21

0.00000042

0.0047

4.0, 1-3X



150a
0.02-0.05r,  0.02g,
0.005h, 2.0h,  0.5h,.
0.012h, 0.011,  O.P
0.001

0.47

4.68

4.2P, 151,  0.047,  0.3J
                                                               (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                       167
                          TABLE 2 (Continued)

                RECOGNITION ODOR THRESHOLD OF  ODORANTS
Odorant
                                                            ppm
Phosgene

Phosphine

Polychloroprene
 suspension

n-Propanol

i-Propanol

Propionald ehyd e

n-Propyl acetate

i-Propyl acetate

n-Propyl mercaptan


i-Propyl mercaptan

b-Propyl sulfide

Pyridine


Skatole

Styrene (inhibited)

Styrene (uninhibited)

Styrol

Sulfur dichloride

Sulfur dioxide
4.4001
80,000a

90,000a

2rOOOf

70,000a

140,000a

30,000a;  75f;  0.23^
8101
40 J; 210d;  3,700*
0.0004^;  9,000J
36C
7,900J; 87 Od
5.6 , 1.0

0.021


0.025n

30a

40a




20a

30a

0.000075^,  .00075s.
0.02*

.00045s



0.82P, 0.021,  0.012J,
0.23m

0.000000075J,  0.019m

0.1

0.017n, 0.047



0.001

.03-1.0r,  0.47,  3.03
                                                               (continued)

-------
APPENDIX  B
                                        168
                         TABLE 2 (Continued)
                RECOGNITION  ODOR THRESHOLD OF  ODORANTS
Odor ant
           M-g/m3
          ppm
Sulfuric  acid

Tetrachloroethylene

Tetradodecyl tnercaptan

Tetrahyd rof urane

Thiocrespol

Thiophane

Thiophenol

Thiophenol mercaptan

Tolvene

Tolvene  (from coke)

Tolvene  (from
 petroleum)

Tolvene  diisocyanate

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

Trichloroethylene

Trimethylamine

Trinitro butyl xylene

Valeric  acid vapor

Valeric  acid

Vanadium pentoxide
600d

320,000a

9,000,000b

90,000a

100f



62f
140,000C
200U

2,100,000a

135,000^; 440,000a

9,600^

10f
50a



30a



.00077s



0.00026m

0.25n

4.68, 40a


2.14




400a

21.4, 80a,  25J

0.41"
                         0.00062-
                                                               (continued)

-------
APPENDIX  B
169
                         TABLE  2  (Continued)




                RECOGNITION ODOR  THRESHOLD OF ODORANTS
Odorant
Vanillin
Vinyl acetate
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
Xylene
Xylol





















i-ig/m3
0.0002 J
l,000d



100,000a
730d
aRef erence 167.
Reference 10.
s~%
Reference 259.
dReference 260.
eRef erence 298.
Reference 4.
gRef erence 128.
hRef erence 289.
^Reference 35.
-'Reference 125.
kRef erence 81.
Reference 166.
"Reference 272
"Reference 255.







ppm
0.000000032J

l.lP
1.8°
0.53P


°Ref erence 93.
pRef erence 236.
rReference 294.
sReference 174.
Reference 264.
uRef erence 36 .
vRef erence 137.
wRef erence 36.
xRef erence 209.
^Reference 63.
zRef erence 87.
aaRef erence 19.
bbRef erence 308.


-------
APPENDIX B                                                     170
                              TABLE 3


              ODOR ADDITION OR SYNERGISM IN MIXTURES236
Fraction of Odor Threshold Concentration When
Odor Could Be Perceived in the Mixture
Test
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
aFraction
b .
Butanola p-Cresola Pyridinea
0.46
0.37
0.35
0.24
0.18
0.15
0.12
0.53
0.14 0.42
0.40
0.19 0.29
0.21 0.21
0.09 0.26
0.21 0.07
Mixture
Total b
0.99
0.93
0.75
0.72
0.60
0.50
0.40
measured concentration
odor
threshold concentration
total measured concentration

                          additive odor threshold concentration
      when the odor of the mixture could be perceived.

-------
APPENDIX B                                                     171

                              TABLE 4

            CROCKER-HENDERSON ODOR CLASSIFICATION  STANDARDS*170
Fragrant
    .1112     n-Butyl phthalate
    .2.424     Toluene
    _3336     a-Chlornaphthalene
    _4344     a-Naphthyl methyl ether
    _5645     Cymene
    J5645     Citral
    _7_343     Safrole
     8453     Methyl salicylate
Acid
Burnt
7122    Vanillin
7_213    Cinnamic acid
5.335    Resorcinol dimethyl  ether
2.424    Toluene
5.523    Isobutyl phenylacetate
5^26    Methyl phenylacetate
5726    Cincole
3_803    Acetic acid  (20 percent  solution)

5414    Ethyl alcohol
742.3    Phenylethyl  alcohol
53_35    Resorcinol dimethyl  ether
434.4    a-Naphthyl methyl  ether
4355    Veratrole
66_65    Thujone
43J76    Paracresyl acetate
7584    Guaiacol
Caprylic
     	    No suitable standard found
     712.2    Vanillin
     7343    Safrole
     562.4    Phenylacetic acid
     5615    Cymene
     333.6    a-Chlornaphthalene
     2 5 7J7    Anisole
     3518    2,7-Dimethyl octane
     *A single substance may serve for  several  standards.   The sub-
stances included in this table have been chosen because they are
reasonably reproducible in odor from lot to  lot,  safe to breathe in
quantities required for comparison, readily  available from chemical
sources,  and  reasonably stable against  changes  in use or on standing,

-------
APPENDIX B                                                       172






                               TABLE  5


                                                         12
                 AMOORE CLASSIFICATION OF ODOR QUALITY
Odor
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

Camphoraceous
Pungent
Ethereal
Floral
Pepperminty
Musky
Putrid
Almond
Aromatic
Aniseed
Lemon
Cedar
Garlic
Rancid
Total
No. of
Compounds
106
95
53
71
77
69
49
30
27
12
7
7
7
6
616

-------
APPENDIX B
                                         TABLE 6
                           ODOR QUALITIES OF SELECTED ODORANTS
                                                              190
Compound
      Formula
      Odor Quality
Ammonia




Antimony compounds




Arsine




Bismuth compounds




Carbon dioxide




Carbon disulfide




Carbon monoxide




Chlorine monoxide




Chlorine peroxide




Cyanogen




Hydrochloric acid




Hydrochromic acid




Hydrofluoric acid




Hydrogen cyanide
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS





        NH3









        AsH3










        CO 2





        CS2




        CO
        ci2o
        CL0
        HC1





        HBr





        HF





        HCN
Ammoniacal




Garlic




Garlic




Garlic




Odorless




Strong objectionable odor




Faint, garlic




Chlorine




Unpleasant




Faint, peach




Halogen




Halogen




Halogen




Bitter almonds
                                                                                 (continued j

-------
APPENDIX  B
                                   TABLE 6  (Continued)





                           ODOR QUALITIES OF SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
                                         Formula
      Odor Quality
Hydrogen peroxide




Hydrogen persulfide




Hydrogen selenide




Hydrogen sulfide




Hydroiodic acid




Hydroxylamine




Hydrozoic acid




Monocloramine




Nitrogen dioxide




Nitrous oxide




Phosgene




Phosphine




Phosphorus compounds




Selenium compounds




Silicon fluoride
                                           H2°2
                                           H0Se
                                           H2S
                                           HI
                                           N3H
                                           NO,
                                           N2O
                                          COC1
                                           PH
                                           SiF4
Odorless




Pungent, irritating  odor




Garlic




Rotten eggs




Halogen




Odorless




Penetrating, unpleasant




Penetrating




Strong, irritating




Faint, pleasant odor




Faint, musty hay




Decayed fish




Garlic




Garlic




Pungent





               (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                      TABLE 6  (Continued)


                             ODOR  QUALITIES OF  SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
Stannic chloride
Sulfur chloride
Thiophosgene
Titanic chloride

Methane
Ethane
Propane
Butane
Hexane
Heptane
Octane
Nonane
Decane
Ethyl en e
Formula
SuCl4
S2C12
csci2
TiCl4
HYDROCARBONS
CH4
C2H6
C3H8 )
C4H10j
s
C6H14
C7H16
C8H18
C9H20
C10H22
C2H4
Odor Quality
Pungent
Pungent
Powerful fetid smell
Pungent

Odorless
Practically odorless
Practically odorless in
concentrations below
inflammable limits
Easily noticeable
Easily noticeable
Powerful gasoline odor
Powerful gasoline odor
Powerful gasoline odor
Ethereal
                                                                                                       -J
                                                                                                       U1
                                                                                       (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                   TABLE 6  (Continued)

                           ODOR QUALITIES OF SELECTED ODGRANTS
Compound
      Formula
      Odor Quality
Acetylene

Cyclohexane

Cyclohexene

1,3-Cyclohexadiene

1,4-Cyclohexadiene

Benzene

Naphthalene

D iphenylmethane



Dibenzyl

Limonene



Ammonia

Methyl amine

Dimethyl amine
       C6H12
       C6H10
       C6H8
       C6H6
       C10H8

    (C6H5)2CH2
      CH CH2CH C(CH2)CH3

OFFENSIVE ODORANTS
       CH3NH2

      (CH3)2NH
Garlic

Bland, fatty benzene

Pungent

Strong, pungent

Weak,  pungent

Odor of dry-cleaning agent

Odor of mothballs

Odor of geraniums when
 dilute; also said to resem-
 ble oranges

Fragrant

Agreeable lemonlike odor



Ammoniacal

Fishy

Fishy
                                                                                  (continued)

-------
APPEZSTDZX B
                                    TABLE 6 (Continued)




                            ODOR  QUALITIES OF SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
                                          Formula
                                Odor  Quality
Trimethyl amine




Ethyl amine




Diethyl amine




Triethyl amine




Putrescine




Cadaverine




Hydrogen sulfide




Methyl mercaptan




Ethyl mercaptan




n-Propyl mercaptan




n-Butyl mercaptan




Dimethyl sulfide




Diethyl sulfide




Methyl ethyl sulfide




Dimethyl disulfide
  (CH3)3N





 CH3CH2NH2




(CH3CH2)2NH





 (CH3CH2)3N





NH2(CH2)4NH2




NH2(CH2)5NH2




    H2S




   CH3SH





  CH3CH2SH




CH3CH2CH2SH




CH3(CH2)3SH





  (CH3)2S




 (CH3CH2)2S




 CH3SCH2CH3




  CH3SSCH3
                                                                  Fishy




                                                                  Fishy




                                                                  Fishy




                                                                  Fishy




                                                                  Decayed flesh




                                                                  Decayed flesh




                                                                  Rotten eggs




                                                                  Skunk




                                                                  Skunk




                                                                  Skunk




                                                                  Skunk




                                                                  Rotten cabbage




                                                                  Rotten cabbage




                                                                  Rotten cabbage




                                                                  Rotten cabbage
                                                                                   (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                    TABLE 6  (Continued)




                           ODOR  QUALITIES OF SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
             Formula
      Odor Quality
Diethyl disulfide









Geraniol




Linalool




p~Cresol




o-Cresol




m-Cresol




2-4 Xylen-1-ol




2-5 Xylen-1-ol




3-5 Xylen-1-ol




3-4 Xylen-1-ol




2-6 Xylen-1-ol




Ethanol




Nonanol




Cetyl alcohol
            (CH3CH2S)2




       ALCOHOLS AND PHENOLS




(CH3)2C:CH-CH2- CH2'C(CH3) :CH-CH2OH




(CH3)2C:CH- CH2- CH2« C (CH3 )OH- CH:CH?




           CH3-C6H4-OH
            CH3-C6H4OH
           (CH3)2C5H3OH




           (CH3)2C6H3OH




           (CH3)2C6H3OH




           (CH3)2C6H3OH





           (CH3)2C6H3OH
             C16H33OH
Rotten cabbage









Roses




Fragrant




Strong




Intermediate




Weak




Faint




Mild cresolic odor




Strong cresolic odor




Dull, musty




Oil of wintergreen




Sweet spiritous odor




Strong, disagreeable




Faint, ethereal, waxy
                                                                   oo
                                                                                  (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                    TABLE 6  (Continued)

                           ODOR  QUALITIES OF SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
            Formula
      Odor Quality
Allyl alcohol

Propargyl alcohol

Oleyl alcohol

Glycol

Glycerol

Benzyl alcohol

Phenylethyl alcohol

Cinnamyl alcohol


Menthol

Terpineol

Phenol

Xylenol

Resorcinol
          CH2:CH CH2OH

           CH=C'CH2OH

    CH3(CH2)jCE:(CH2)7CH2OH

          CH2OH CH2OH

        CH2OH•CHOH•CH2OH

           C6H5CH2OH

          C6H5CH2CH2OH
        C6H5CH:CH CH2OH
(CH2)2CH(CH3)CH2CH(OH)CH CH(CH3)

 (CH2)2C(CH3)CHCH2CH C(CH3)2OH

             C6H5OH

          C6H3(CH3)2OH

         1-3.C6H4(OH)2
Irritating

Agreeable

Faint, waxy

Odorless

Odorless

Faint aromatic odor

Constituent of rose perfume

Weak, pleasant hyacinth
 odor

Peppermint odor

Lilac odor

Carbolic, disinfectant odor

Similar, less sharp

Odorless
                                                                                  (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                   TABLE 6  (Continued)

                           ODOR QUALITIES OF SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
   Formula
      Odor Quality
Heptyl hexyl ether

Heptyl heptyl ether

Heptyl undecyl ether
                                          ETHERS
 C7H15OC6H13

 C7H15OC7H15
C7H150CUH23
Heptyl phenyl ether

3,7-Dimethyl-e-methoxy-oct-6-en-l-yn

3,7~Dimethyl-3-ethoxy-oct-6-en-l-yn

3,7-Dimethyl-3-amyloxy-oct-6-en-l-yn

3,7-Dimethyl-3-allyloxy—oct-6-en~l-yn

3,7-Dimethyl-3-benzyloxy-oct-6-en-l-yn

3,6,7-Trimethyl-6-methoxy-oct-6-en-l-yn

3,7-Dimethyl-3-propargyloxy-oct-6-en-l-yn

3,7,ll-Trimethyl-3-methoxy-
   dodeca-6,10-dien-l-yn

3,7,ll-Trimethyl-3-allyloxy-
   dodeca-6,10-dien-l-yn
Odor like bluebell stalks

Odor like wet wool

Fugitive odor of fatty
 aldehydes

Odor of opoponax

Bergamot

Bergamot

Jasmine

Jasmine and fruity

Cinnamon

Nutmeg

Rosewood

Lily


Lily, fruity
                                                         oo
                                                         o
                                                                                  (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                   TABLE 6  (Continued)

                           ODOR QUALITIES OF SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
     Formula
      Odor Quality
3-Methyl-3-methoxy-6-
   cyclohexyliden-hex-1-yn

3-Methyl-3-allyloxy-6-
   cyclohexyliden-hex-1-yn

Diethyl ether

Heptyl hexyl ether

Anisole

Phenetole

Diphenyl ether
Formic acid

Acetic acid


Butyric acid

Isobutyric acid

Palmitic acid
   C7H15OC6H13
    CH3OC6H5
    C2H5OC6H5

    C6H5OC6H5

CARBOXYLIC ACIDS
     H•COOH

    CH3-COOH


 CH3(CH2)2'COOK

  (CH)2CH-COOH

   C15H31-COOH
Vetiver


Coriander


Sweet spiritous

Bluebell stalks

Fragrant, overpowering

Fragrant, aromatic

Geraniums when dilute



Pungent, irritating

Penetrating; vinegar when
 dilute

Disagreeable

More disagreeable

Odorless
CD
                                                                                  (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                    TABLE 6 (Continued)


                            ODOR QUALITIES OF SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
           Formula
      Odor Quality
Acrylic acid


Crotonic acid


Oleic acid


Propiolic acid


Lactic acid


Succinic acid


Tricarballylic acid


Phenylacetic acid


Benzoic acid


Hexahydrobenzoic acid





Propyl acetate


Amyl acetate


Isoamyl acetate
         CH2 : CH • COOH


       CH3-CH:CH-COOH


CH3 • ( CH2 ) 7 ' CH : CH • ( CH2 ) 7 ' COOH


          CH=C • COOH


        CH3CHOH-COOH


      COOH * ( CH2 ) 2 • COOH


  COOH-CH2.CH COOK- CH2 COOH
         C6H11'COOH


           ESTERS


       C3H7.O-CO-CH3
       C3H11O.CO-CH3
   CH3)2CH-CH2•CH2.O-CO.CH3
More pungent than  acetic


Acrid, butyric


Odorless


Acrylic


Odorless


Odorless


Odorless


Weak civet


Odorless


Rancid





Like pears


Like Jargonelle pears


Like pears
                                                                  CD
                                                                  DO
                                                                                  (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                   TABLE 6  (Continued)





                           ODOR QUALITIES OF SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
        Formula
      Odor Quality
Ethyl butyrate




Isoamyl isovalerate




Heptyl formate




Heptyl acetate




Heptyl isobutyrate




Heptyl caproate




Heptyl undecylate




Heptyl salicylate





Heptyl geranate




Methyl acetate




Ethyl acetate




Octyl acetate




Diethyl adipate




Ethyl hydrogen adipate
    C2H5.O.CO.C3H7
( CH3 ) 2CH • C2H4 • 0 • CO • C4Hg
     C?H15.O.CO.H
    C7H15*°*CO'CH3
    C7H15'0°CO'C3H7
   C7H1 5 ' ° " CO ' C6H4OH




   C7H15-O-CO.CgH15





      CH3OCO CH3
      C2H5OCO CH3
     CgH17OCO CH3





C2H5OCO (CH2 )4'OCOC2H5




  C2H5OCO (CH2)4COOH
Like pineapples




Like apples




Fruity




Fruity




Cyc1amen-camomi1e




Bruised green leaves




Smok e,  i nk




Steel




Hawthorn, mimosa




Fragrant




Fragrant




Orange




Fruity




Fruity
oo
                                                                                  (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                    TABLE 6  (Continued)

                           ODOR  QUALITIES OF SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
         Formula
      Odor Quality
Triethyl citrate

Melissyl palmitate

Benzyl acetate

Methyl salicylate

Amyl salicylate



Alpha-methyl cinnamaldehyde

Alpha-ethyl cinnamaldehyde

Alpha-n-propyl cinnamaldehyde

Alpha-n-butyl cinnamaldehyde

Alpha-n-amyl cinnamaldehyde

Alpha-n-hexyl cinnamaldehyde

Alpha-n-heptyl cinnamaldehyde

Alpha-n-octyl cinnamaldehyde
(C2H5OCOCH2)2 C(OH)COOC2H5
     C30H61OCO C15H31

      C4H5CH2OCO CH3
      CH3OCO C6H4OH
     C5H11OCO C6H4OH
        ALDEHYDES

     C0H5CH:C(CH3 ) CHO

    C6H5CH:C(C?H5 )CHO

    C6H5CH:C(C3H7 )CHO

    C6H5CH:C(C4Hg ) CHO

    C6H5CH:C(C5H11 ) CHO

    C8H5CH:C(C6H13)CHO

    C6H5CH:C(C7H15 ) CHO

    C6 H5 CH: C (C8 Hj 7 ) CHO
Fruity

Odorless

Jasmine

Oil of wintergreen

Clover



Gentle cinnamon, grassy

Mild cinnamon, nasturtium

Sweet, faintly animal

Strong,  fatty, green

Very powerful, jasmine

Less powerful, jasmine, green

Sweet

Faint, almond, no longer
 green
CO
                                                                                  (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                   TABLE  6  (Continued)



                           ODOR QUALITIES OF  SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
   Formula
      Odor Quality
Alpha-n-decyl cinnamaldehyde



Formaldehyde



Paraformald ehyd e



Acetalehyde



Acrolein



Propiolald ehyd e



St earald ehyd e



Geranial  (citral)



Glycollic aldehyde



B enz aid ehyd e



Cinnamic  aldehyde



Piperonal



Phenylethyl aldehyde



Salicylaldehyde
    H-CHO
   (CH20)n
   CH3CHO
 CH2:CH CHO



   CH=C•CHO



  C17H35CHO



:CH C2H4C(CH3):CH«CHO



  CH2OH-CHO
   C6H5CHO
C6H5CH:CH CHO
CH2O2C6H3CHO
 C6H5CH2CHO
o-HO CrH.CHO
      6 4
Very faint



Pungent formalin



Mild formalin



Pungent



Irritating, snuffed candle



Irritating



Faint waxy



Lemon



Odorless



Bitter almonds



Cinnamon



Heliotrope



Hyacinth



Spirea
oo
                                                                                  (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                   TABLE 6  (Continued)

                           ODOR QUALITIES OF SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
        Formula
                                 Odor Quality
Aubepine

Vanillin

Furfural

Alpha-Amy! cinnamic
   (jasmine) aldehyde
Alpha, beta-dihydroxypropane


Alpha, beta-dihydroxybutane


Alpha, gamma-dihydroxybutane


2:4 dihydroxy-4-methylpentane



Methyl chloride

Methylene chloride
    p-CH30 C6H4CHO
    CHO-C6H3-OH OCH3
       C4H3O.CHO
  C6H5-CH:C(C5H11)CHO
                                         ACETALS
    CHoOH-CHOH-CH-
    CH2OH-CHOH-C2H5
OH
            CHOH
CH3•CHOH•CH2C(OH)CH3•CH3

        HALIDES
         CH3C1
         CH2C12
                           Hawthorn

                           Vanilla

                           New bread

                           Jasmine
The acetal smells of fresh
 roses

The acetal smells of
 hyacinths

The acetal smells of
 hyacinths

Mignonette
                           Ethereal

                           Ethereal
                              oo
                                                                                  (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                   TABLE 6  (Continued)




                           ODOR QUALITIES OF  SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
 Formula
                                 Odor Quality
Chloroform




lodoform





Chlorobenzene




p-Dichlorbenzene




Benzyl chloride





Hexachlorethane










Methylamine





Trimethylamine





Triethanolamine




Tetraethylammonium hydroxide





Aminovaleric acid




Cadaverine




Benzylamine
  CHC13
  CHI
 C6H5.C1





C6H4~C12
  C-Cl,-
   2  6
   AMINES











  (CH3)3.N





 (C2H4OH)3N





 (C2H5)4N-OH





 [«• (OO ,COOH
NH2•(CH2)5NH2




C6H5-CH2-NH2
                           Sweet, ethereal




                           Saffron




                           Mild




                           Camphor, naphthalene




                           Stupefying





                           Camphorac eous
                         Ammonia, boiled lobsters





                         Herring brine





                         Oily, slightly fishy




                         Odorless





                         Odorless




                         Decaying flesh




                         Ammoniacal
                                                         CD
                                                                                  (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                    TABLE 6  (Continued)

                           ODOR QUALITIES OF  SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
        Formula
                                    Odor  Quality
Aniline

Diphenylamine

Anthranilic acid

Methyl anthranilate



Methyl nitrate

Methyl nitrite

Nitromethane

Beta-Nitrohexane

Nitrobenzene

Acetamide


Methyl cyanide


Sebacic dinitrile
     C6H5-NH2

     (C6H5)2NH

   C6H4NH2-COOH

  C6H,,m:l2~ COOCHj

NITROGEN COMPOUNDS
       CH3«O-N02
        CH3-NO2
CH3-(CH2)3-CH(NO2
      CH3-CO-NH2
        CH3'CN
      CN(CH0)QCN
           2. o
                                Gas, lime

                                Floral

                                Odorless

                                Orange blossom,  jasmine
                              Pleasant ester

                              Powerful, oppressive

                              Pleasant

                              Aniseed

                              Coarse, bitter almonds

                              "Mice'1 usually, odorless
                               if pure

                              Agreeable, reminiscent  of
                               prussic acid

                              Unpleasant, nutty
                                                              U'
                                                              00
                                                                                  (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                   TABLE  6  (Continued)




                           ODOR QUALITIES OF  SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
       Formula
      Odor Quality
Ethyl carbylamine




Phenylhydrazine




Diazomethane




Tetraethyl tetrazine
Allyl sulfide




Allyl isothiocyanate




Ethyl isothiocyanate





Ethyl thiocyanate




Ethyl sulfite




Diethyl sulfate




Amyl mercaptan





Mustard gas
     C6H5-NH'NH2
        CH2N2
(C2H5)2N-N:N-M(C2H5)2
                                     SULFUR  COMPOUNDS
   (CH2:
   CH2:CH-CH2N:CS




     C2H5-N:CS
     C2H5-S-C:N





     (C2H50)2.SO




    (C2H5O)2-SO2
      C5H11-SH
    (C1CH2-CH2)2S
Offensive, nauseating




Pleasant, aromatic




Odorless




Alliaceous
Garlic




Mustard




Mustard





Onions




Peppermint




Heavy, sweet, ethereal




Powerful, unpleasant





Horseradish
                                                             oo
                                                                                 (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                   TABLE 6  (Continued)


                           ODOR QUALITIES OF  SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
       Formula
      Odor Quality
Phenyl thiocarbimide


p-Thiocarbimide benzaldehyde

m-Tolyl thiocarbimide

p-Tolyl thiocarbimide




Ethylene oxide

Ethylene imine

Succinic anhydride

Butyrolactone

Furfular

Thiophen


Pyrrol

Pyridine
    CHO-C6H4-N:CS
     CH3-C6H4NCS
    CH3-C6H4-N:CS
HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUNDS


       (CH2)20


      (CH2)2NH

      (CH2CO)20


    CH2CH2CH2OCO

      C4H3OCHO


        C4H4S
       C4H4NH
        C5H5N
Mustard


Cherry pie

Pungent

Sweet anise




Sweet, ethereal

Ammoniacal

Suffocating

Faintly aromatic

New bread

Faint, neutral


Chloroform

Rank, unpleasant
H
U3
O
                                                                                 (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                   TABLE 6 (Continued)

                           ODOR QUALITIES OF SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
                                         Formula
      Odor Quality
Quinoline

Piperidine

Dioxane

Morpholine

Piperazine


Alpha-Phenylpropyl pyridine

Gamma-Propyl pyridine

Indole



Skatole

Coniine

Nicotine

Thiazole
                                          C9H7N
                                          C4H8°2
                                         C4HgONH
                                        C4Hg(NH)2
                                          C8H6NH
                                       C8H5NH(CH3)

                                        C3H7C5H7NH
Aromatic, aniseed

Ammoniacal, pungent

Faint, sweet, ethereal

Faint, ammoniacal

Bitter odor like dandelions,
 slightly ammoniacal

Roses

Violets

Alpha-Naphthylamine when
 concentrated, but jasmine
 when dilute

Fecal

Stupefying

Rank, tobacco

Pyridine
                                                                                               ^
                                                                                (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                   TABLE 6 (Continued)

                           ODOR QUALITIES OF SELECTED ODORANTS
Compound
          Formula
      Odor Quality
Benzothiazole

2-Phenylbenzothiazole

Benzoxazole

Pyridazine



Compounds with
Decamethylene oxalate
   (14-atom ring)

Undecamethylene oxalate
   (15-atom ring)
         C6H4NSCH
         C6H4NOCH
          C4H4N2

   MACROCYCLIC COMPOUNDS

      9-12 atom rings

       13 atom rings

    14-15-16 atom rings

     17-18 atom rings

More than 18-19 atom rings

      (CH2)1002(CO)2


      (CH2)1102(CO)2
Quinoline

Tea rose

Tobacco

Pyridine



Camphor or mint

Woody or cedar-like

Musk

Civet

Odor practically disappears

Fresh, musk-like


Musk odor
                                                                ro
                                                                                 (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                   TABLE  6  (Continued)
                           ODOR QUALITIES OF  SELECTED  ODORANTS
Compound
     Formula
      .Odor Quality
Decamethylene malonate
   (15-atom ring)

Ethylene sebacate
   (14-atotn ring)

Ethyl ene undecanedioate
   (15-atom ring)

Tetraethylene carbonate
   (14-atom ring)
(CH2)1002(CO)2CH2



  (CH2)10°2(CO)2


  (CH2)1102(CO)2


    (CH2)805CO
Faint musk
Musk-like
Musk-like
Fresh, faint, musk-like
                                                                                                to

-------
APPENDIX  B                                                      194


                              TABLE 7

       PUBLIC  OPINION SURVEYS RELATING ODORS  TO  AIR  POLLUTION
Persons Responding Persons Annoyed
to Survey bv Odorsa
Location
Nashville
Clarkston
Moerrum,

, Tenn.254
, Wash.172
Sweden4 3
Terre Haute, Ind.1
St. Louis
St. Louis
, MO. 131, 221
, MO. 131, 221
Steubenville, Ohio124
Year
1959
1962
1963
1964
1965
1965
1967
Number
2,835
104
394
20b
400
600
936
Number
742
95
351
19
214
269
288
Percent
26.2
91
89
95
53.5
44.8
30.8
       aThese  people described air pollution  in  their location as
"bad  smells."

       AThese  people complained of air pollution with all but one
mentioning odors.
                              TABLE 8

            COMPLAINTS RELATING ODORS TO PROPERTY DAMAGE
                   AND HEALTH IN TERRE HAUTE,  IND .1
Date
May 20,
May 21,
May 24,
May 26,
May 27,
June 3,

1964
1964
1964
1964
1964
1964
Number
Property/od or
1
1
14
6
4
14
of Complaints
Health/odor
15
4
14
0
0
8

Total
16
5
28
6
4
22

-------
APPENDIX  B                                                      195
                                 TABLE 9
        ODORS BY TIME OF DAY  IN  THE ST.  LOUIS METROPOLITAN AREA131
                   (November  18  to  December 1, 1963)
Area
St. Louis
Positive observations
Total observations
% positive
St. Louis County
Positive observations
Total observations
% positive
Illinois
Positive observations
Total observations
% positive
Metropolitan Area
Positive observations
Total observations
% positive
7 a.m.

126
483
26.1

66
371
17.8

43
164
26.2

-235
1,018
23.1
2 p.m.

136
494
27.5

85
370
23.0

39
161
24.2

260
1, 025
25.4
8 p.m.

192
490
39.2

119
372
32.0

54
162
33.3

365
1,024
35.6
10 p.m.

176
491
35.8

106
360
29.4

56
161
34.8

338
1,012
33.4
12

157
488
32

74
311
23

56
144
38

287
943
30
M



.2



.8



.9



.4

-------
APPENDIX B                                                      196
                               TABLE 10

                     EFFECT OF THE DAY OF THE WEEK
                     ON ODOR NUISANCE OCCURRENCES118
                            Number of             Number  of Nuisance
Day of Week*                 Complaints               Occurrences
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
19
15
8
10
17
34
41
7
11
6
7
10
11
18
        *During the middle of the week fewer occurrences  and
complaints  happened.   Saturday is the day of most frequent complaints
and most numerous  odor occurrences.
                               TABLE 11

                       EFFECT OF THE TIME OF DAY
                      ON ODOR NUISANCE OCCURRENCES118
                            Number of             Number of Nuisance
Time of Day*
0000 to 0600
0600 to 1200
1200 to 1800
1800 to 2400
Complaints
12
29
44
53
Occurrences
9
23
24
32
        *Only  8.7  percent of complaints and only 10 percent  of  the
odor occurrences came during the first quarter of the day.

-------
 APPENDIX B
                                                                197
                                TABLE  12
           EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON ODOR NUISANCE OCCURRENCES118
 Temperature
    Range*
No. of Complaints
During 1958  &  1959
 No. of Hours
at Temperature
Ratio: No. Hours/
 No. Comp1aints
0 to
45 to
50 to
55 to
60 to
65 to
70 to
75 to
80 to
85 to
90 to
95 to

65°F.
44
49
54
59
64
69
74
79
84
89
94
100
*The
Higher
0
2
3
4
5
26
33
34
13
10
4
0
critical temperatures
temperatures result
6,184
1,262
1,121
1,118
1,493
1,795
1,957
1,228
817
472
73
0
for these odor
in more frequent
CO
631
374
280
299
69
59
36
63
47
18
— •
nuisances are above
complaints and
nuisances.
                                TABLE 13
                     EFFECT OF ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE
                      ON ODOR NUISANCE OCCURRENCES118
 Pressure
  Range*
 [lynches Hg)
No. of Complaints
During 1958 & 1959
 No.  of Hours
 at Pressure
Ratio: No. Hours/
 No. Complaints

28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
0
.85
.90
.95
.00
.05
.10
.15
.20
.25
.30
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to

28.
28.
28.
28.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.

84
89
94
99
04
09
14
19
24
29

1
6
21
9
18
25
18
15
9
5
4
1

1
1
2
2
2
1
1

1
,234
790
,424
,714
,032
,260
,090
,770
,720
844
,622
1,234
132
68
190
113
90
116
118
191
170
406
         *Very few complaints were received when the  atmospheric
Pressure  was  below 28.84 inches Hg.

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                               198
                               TABLE  14

                      EFFECT OF RELATIVE HUMIDITY
                      ON ODOR NUISANCE OCCURRENCES118
   Relative
Humidity Range*
No. of  Complaints
During  1958  &  1959
No. of Hours
  at R.H.
Ratio: No. Hours/
0 to
30 to
50 to
70 to
80 to
90 to
30
49
69
79
89
100
0
27
47
24
18
18

2
5
3
3
2
453
,974
,186
,184
,007
,698
CO
110
110
132
167
150
        *Hours of low relative humidity (R.H.)  have more frequent
complaints per hour.
                               TABLE 15

         EFFECT OF WIND VELOCITY ON ODOR NUISANCE OCCURRENCES118
     Range
Wind Velocity*
     (mph)
No. of Complaints
During 1958 & 1959
No. of Hours
at Velocity
Ratio: No. Hours/
 No. Complaints
0 to
5 to
15 to
25 to
4
14
24
CO
25
95
17
0
3
11
2

,584
,105
,740
91
143
117
161
CO
        *Wind  velocity had no effect on the number  of hours  per
complaint.

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                             199
                              TABLE 16

            EFFECT OF CHANGING TEMPERATURE, PRESSURE, AND
          RELATIVE HUMIDITY ON ODOR NUISANCE OCCURRENCES118
                Temperature
           Pressure
 Relative Humidity
Type of No. of % of
Chanqe* Complaints Total
Increasing
Static
Decreasing
34
19
79
26
14
60
No. of % of
Complaints Total
64
37
30
49
28
23
No. of % of
Complaints Total
69
15
48
52
11
37
       *On a percentage basis, decreasing temperature, increasing
pressure,  and increasing relative humidity cause more frequent
complaints to be received.
                              TABLE 17

       EFFECT OF TIME OF YEAR ON ODOR NUISANCE OCCURRENCES
                                 118
Month
Number of
Complaints
Number of Nuisance
   Occurrences*
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
0
0
1
6
9
14
28
44
34
2
1
0
0
0
1
4
4
9
16
18
18
2
1
0
       *The  number of nuisance occurrences refers to the number of
different days on which complaints occurred.  Note that 86 percent
of the complaints and 84 percent of the occurrences happened during
the months of June, July, August, and September.

-------
APPENDIX
                                            200
                             TABLE 18
                   THEORIES OF OLFACTION
                                        195,234
Author,
         General
Date	Clas s
        Salient_ Features
Ogle
    203
Woker
Fabre
     304
     77
        163
Marchand
    •   105
Henning
Heyninx107
Backman


Teudt278
       18
Durrans
       67
Heller
      103
Ruzicka
       241
Tschirch
        283
1870  Vibrational
1906  Chemical
1911  Vibrational
1915  Chemical
1916  Chemical



1917  Vibrational



1917  Chemical


1919  Vibrational
1920  Chemical



1920  Chemical


1920  Chemical

1921  Chemical
Vibrations affected nasal pig-
ment, which gave out heat which
excited the olfactory cells

Unsaturation main cause of odor,
but not essential if substance
very volatile

Limited to insects.  Not known
by man.  Human olfaction due to
material particles

Unsaturation (including car-
bonyl bonds).  Having two
points of Unsaturation red.uces
odor

Osmophore groups are important,
but their relative position
determines the type of odor

Vibrations causing absorption
in the ultra-violet band also
cause odor

Water solubility and lipoid
solubility essential

Electronic vibrations of sen-
sory nerves increased by
reasonance with similar vibra-
tions of odorants

Residual affinity.  Addition
reaction on the olfactory
epithelium

Direct chemical action on nerve-
ending

Csmophore and osmoceptor

Substance must be soluble in air.
Loose compound  formed with
plasma of the olfactory cell
                                                           (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                   201
                        TABLE 18 (Continued)
                                        195 234
                   THEORIES OF OLFACTION
Author
        Date
         General
          Class
                     Salient Features
Zwaardemaker313  1922
Ungerer and
  Stoddard287
       57
Delange"

Missenden
181
     200
Nicol
Pirrone
       215
     n •  -199
Niccolini
Krisch
      149
Muller
      194
Dyson
     70
1922

1926
        1926

        1929
              23
              Chemical-
               Vibrational
        1922  Vibrational
Chemical

Chemical
      Chemical
        1933  Chemical


        1934  Vibrational

        1936  Physical



        1937  Vibrational
Beck and Miles   1947  Vibrational
McCord and   _n  1949  Electro-
  Wither idge            chemical
Odorous substances possess
odoriphores, are volatile, have
lower surface tension, and are
lipoid solubleo  Odoriphore
depends on vibrations in
molecule

Intramolecular vibrations within
definite frequency range.  Un-
saturation helpful.  Interference
and resonance effects

Unsaturation

Intensity depends on number of
molecules making contact with
nose.  Quality depends on
nature of reaction between odor-
ous molecules and lipoid tissues

Function of sinuses

Two  smophore groups; one deter-
mines type of odor, the other
the variety

Volatility.  Solubility in nasal
mucosa.  Oxidizability

Insects

Odorous substances are dipolar.
Irritate  the molecular  fields
of the osmoceptor in nose

Volatility.  Lipoid solubility
Raman shift between 1,400 and
3,500 crrr1

Infra-red radiation from recep-
tors absorbed by odorants

Change in bonding angle of odor-
ant molecules on solution in
mucosa
                                                           (continued)

-------
APPENDIX
                                            202
                         TABLE 18 (Continued)

                    THEORIES OF OLFACTION195'234
Author
Baradi and
Bourne20
99
Hainer^
Wright305
. 52
Date
1951
1953
1954

General
Class
Enzyme
Information
Vibrational

Salient Features
Inhibition of enzyme action
odorants
30 levels of intensity; 24
kinds of primary odor

by

Raman shift of frequency lower
than 800-1,000 cm"^


Davies
Moncrieff188
Amoore
      12
Moncrieff
         190
1954  Physico-
       chemical
1961  Physical
1962  Stereo-
       chemical
1967  Stereo-
       chemical
Puncturing of olfactory cell
membrane and exchange of Na+
and K+

Volatility, adsorbability, and
customary absence from olfac-
tory region

Whole-molecule theory.  Devel-
loped size and shape of each
receptor site

Whole-molecule theory.  Extended
1961 theory

-------
APPENDIX B                                               203

                          TABLE 19

                                               143
          MOST FREQUENTLY REPORTED ODOR SOURCES  °
                                                      Number
Source of Odor	Reported

Animal odors
    Meat packing and rendering plants                   12
    Fish oil odors from manufacturing plants             5
    Poultry ranches and processing                       4

Odors from combustion processes
    Gasoline and diesel engine exhaust                  10
    Coke-oven and coal-gas odors (steel mills)           8
    Poorly adjusted heating systems                      3

Odors from food processing
    Coffee roasting plants                               8
    Restaurants                                          4
    Bakeries                                             3

Paint and related industries
    Manufacturing of paint, lacquer, and varnish         8
    Paint spraying                                       4
    Commerical solvents                                  3

General chemical odors
    Hydrogen sulfide                                     7
    Sulfur dioxide                                       4
    Ammonia                                              3

General industrial odors
    Burning rubber from smelting and debonding           5
    Odors from dry-cleaning shops                        5
    Fertilizer plants                                    4
    Asphalt odors (roofing and street paving)            4
    Asphalt odors (manufacturing)                        3
    Plastic manufacturing                                3

Foundry odors
    Core-oven odors                                      4
    Heat treating, oil quenching, and pickling           3
    Smelting                                             2

0_dors from combustion of waste
    Home incinerators and backyard trash fires           4
    City incinerators burning garbage                    3
    Open-dump fires                                      2

                                                   (continued)

-------
APPENDIX  B                                                204

                    TABLE 19 (Continued)

          MOST FREQUENTLY REPORTED ODOR SOURCES143
                                                      Number
Source of Odor	Reported

Refinery odors
    Mercaptans                                           3
    Crude oil and gasoline                               3
    Sulfur                                               1

Odors from decomposition of waste
    Putrefaction and oxidation  (organic acids*)          3
    Organic nitrogen compounds  (decomposition of
      protein*)                                          2
    Decomposition of lignite  (plant cells)               1

Sewage odors
    City sewers carrying industrial waste                3
    Sewage treatment plants                              2
    *Probably related to meat processing plants.

-------
APPENDIX B
                                            TABLE 20


             NATURE  OF  AIR  CONTAMINANTS EMANATING FROM VARIOUS TYPES  OF  SOURCES
108
Communities Over 5,
000 Population3
Total
Source
All sources
Industrial (total)b
Nonindustrial (total)
Apartment houses
Office buildings
Stores
Bakeries
Laundries
Schools
Hospitals
Hotels
Theaters
Public buildings
Incinerators
Railroads
Dumps
Auto and bus exhaust
Other
No.
409
123
286
28
15
10
9
21
18
12
11
9
18
33
16
60
16
10
%
100
30
70
10
5
3
3
7
6
4
4
3
6
12
6
21
6
3
Smoke
258
49
209
21
15
8
6
18
18
12
10
7
18
16
13
36
5
6
Odors Other
103 48
26 48
77 0
7

2
3
3


1
2

17
3
24
11
4
Communities under 5,000 Population
Total
No.
167
100
67
5
2
1

1
7
1
1
1
4
3
4
32
3
2
%
100
60
40
7
3
2

2
10
2
2
2
6
4
6
48
4
3
Smoke
99
49
50
3
1
1

1
7
1
1
1
4
2
4
21
2
1
Odors
40
23
17
2
1








1

11
1
1
Other
28
28
0















        aSurveys  did not include New York Cityc
        b.
         No breakdown is available on types of industrial establishments.
                                                                                                  to
                                                                                                  o

-------
APPENDIX
                                            TABLE 21



                         ODOR CONCENTRATION MEASURED  IN VARIOUS PLANTS
26
Application
Rubber processing

Coffee roaster

Rendering plant

Pulp mill

Pulp mill

Pulp mill

Pulp mill

Exhaust
Flow
(scfm)
6,900

3,600

29,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

Average* Odor
Concentration
(odor units/scf)
50

2,000

1,500-25,000

<10

17

2,000

2,500-11,000

Average
Emission Rate
(odor units/min)
350,000

7,200,000

55,000,000
730,000,000
2,000,000

3,400,000

400,000,000

500,000,000
2,200,000,000
Remarks
Controlled by direct
fume incinerator
Uncontrolled effluent
from roasters
Uncontrolled effluent
from dryer
Controlled by recovery
furnace
Controlled by recovery
furnace
Recovery furnace
intentionally upset
Effluent from cascade
evaporator
        *Based  on  syringe dilution technique.
                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                   cr»

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                         207
                         TABLE  22

         ATMOSPHERIC CONTAMINANTS*  RECOVERED FRQ:
        CHARCOAL AFTER  30-DAY MANNED  EXPERIMENT
 1.  Carbon dioxide

 2.  Ethylene

 3.  Acetylene

 4.  Propylene

 5.  Butene-1

 6.  Isobutylene

 7.  n-Butane

 8.  Saturated hydrocarbon

 9.  Freon-11

10.  Acetaldehyde

11.  Isoprene

12.  Hydrocarbon

13.  Ethyl formate

14.  Hydrocarbon

15.  Ethyl alcohol
16.  Hydrocarbon

17.  Ethyl acetate

18.  Benzene

19.  Hydrocarbon

20.  Trichloroethylene

21.  Toluene

22.  Tetrachloroethylene

23.  Butanol

24.  Acetone

25 o  Hydrocarbon

26.  Acetic acid

27.  Proprionic acid

28.  Butyric acid

29.  Formaldehyde
    *Detected  in the unseparated  desorbate  mixture of
hydrocarbons.

-------
APPENDIX B
                                      TABLE 23

            POTENTIAL SOURCES OF ODOROUS EMISSIONS FROM OIL REFINERIES'
                                           214
Emissions
                      Sources
Oxides of sulfur
Hydrocarbons
Oxides of nitrogen
Mercaptans
Hydrogen sulfide
Phenolic compounds and
  naphthenic acids

Organic sulfides and
  nitrogen bases
Aldehydes
Combustion of fuels containing sulfur, flares, catalytic
   cracking unit regenerators, treating units, decoking
   operations

Gasoline storage tanks and loading facilities, turnarounds
   (blow-down systems, blind changing), leakage (pumps,
   valves, cooling towers, sampling), sewers and oil
   recovery facilities, vacuum jets and/or barometric
   condensers, catalyst regenerators, and compressor engines

Combustion processes, gas fired compressor engine exhausts,
   catalyt regenerators, flares

Cracking units, caustic regeneration units, some asphalt
   plants

Untreated gas stream leaks; vapor from crude oil and raw
   distillates, process condensate sewers

Movement and storage of the caustic solutions used in
   scrubbing straight run and cracked distillates

Movement and storage of the acid solutions used in scrubbing
   organic sulfides and nitrogen bases, if they are present,
   from straight run or cracked distillates or lubricating
   oil fractions

Air-blowing of asphalts, incomplete combustion of fuel
                                                                                            N)
                                                                                            o
                                                                                            CD

-------
APPENDIX B
209
                          TABLE 24


CRUDE OIL CAPACITY IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF  JANUARY  1969
 273
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawa i i
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
No.
Plants
6
1
6
32
4
1
1
2
1
11
10
12
3
16
2
8
3
4
1
9
1
6
6
2
2
11
14
1
13
1
1
47
5
1
6
2
2
9
263
Crude Capacity51
b/cd^
34,620
20,000
93,500
1,529,075
42,900
140,000
3,100
9,500
35,000
704,100
565,700
389,300
128,500
1,190,850
19,400
146,050
138,300
168,700
83,000
128,200
4,000
523,500
42,610
76,900
55,000
491,600
449,367
11,000
628,920
7,500
28,500
3,118,250
11,950
43,600
219,000
8,570
29,500
132,900
11,522,512
b/sdc
36,820
21,000
94,985
1,606,985
46,235
150,000
3,150
11,000
NR
732,300
588,800
407,300
132,600
1,230,000
20,500
152,000
144,000
181,500
84,700
137,500
4,500
555,000
44,400
81,000
57,000
525,900
464,250
12,000
659,100
10,000
29,750
3,244,300
116,400
45,000
226,000
9,100
30,600
146,686
12,079,201
       aState  totals  include  figures  converted to calendar-
day or stream-day basis.
       ^b/cd = barrels  per  calendar day.
       cb/sd = barrels  per  stream-day.

-------
                                                         210
APPENDIX B
                         TABLE  25

          SULFUR PRODUCTION FROM HYDROGEN SULFIDE
                 IN THE UNITED  STATES95'204
                     (Long Tons  per  Year)
Year	Plant Capacity	Actual Production

1961                1,659,000                      858,000

1967                2,737,000                    1,244,000

1968                3,036,000                    1,400,000

-------
APPENDIX B
                                     TABLE 26
     RANGE OF SULFUR GAS CONCENTRATIONS ENCOUNTERED  IN KRAFT MILL SAMPLING
                                                                           243
Gas Concentration (ppm bv volume)
Source
Digester vent
Blow gases
Pulp washer
Sulfur
Trioxide
0.1-0.2
Hydrogen
Sulfide
16-18,800
0-782
0-12
Methyl
Mercaptan
0-4,370
0-9,840
0-79
Dimethyl
Sulfide
3,850-65,000
522-46,900
0
Dimethyl
Disulf ide
0-65,000
0-10
0.1-0.4
Evaporator,
  noncondensible

Recovery furnace

Smelt dissolving tank

Lime kiln

Tall oil cooking
           907-32,600  455-36,700

  4-798     14-1,140     0-489

0.5-70      10-44        0-212

  0-169      0-254       0-128

  2-822  5,400-101,000   0-4,660
0-27,600   0-1,278

0-260      0-17

0-91       0-4

0-60       0-18

0        103-7,693

-------
APPENDIX B
                                        TABLE  27

             ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM KRAFT  PULP MILL IN LEWISTON,  IDAHO
                                     (Pounds  per Day)
268









Process or
Equipment
Source
Digester gases
Evaporators
Recovery
furnaces
Smelt tanks
Lime kilns
Oxidation
towers
Plant boilers
Paper machines
Pulp dryer
Total





£
i rt

II
69
20

neg
c
c

c
e
e
e
89





,_i
>i CD

-P -H
S rH
t-H ' '
•H p
P CO
50
neg

neg
c
c

60
e
e
e
110

w
QJ

rt
rH

o

•-H -P
o rt
CO Cn
e
e

12,310
1,100
6,269

e
397
e
e
20,076
rt
CQ
0)
H
,Q
%
-P
CO
p

O
U
e
e

141,400
e
147,700

e
neg
e
e
289,100
ra
0)
13
•H
X
O

J*J 04
P 0
•w co
H
P CO
co rt
e
e

1,180
e
6b

e
28b
e
e
1,214





C
0)
en u) CM
O 0) O
-P -H
•rH X tfl
J3 O rt
e
e

c
e
847

e
2,910
e
e
3,757
in
to QJ
rt ^3
j>(
CO £
QJ 0)
^3 T3
^i i — 1
rC rt
CD E
rH O
e
e

e
e
8

e
141
e
e
149
to
t3
-H
U


!H
(U
-P
1
e
e

2,778,000
e
1,850,000

e
2,550,000
1,782,000
320,000
9,280,000
      aCorubustible emission probably  consists  of  carbon  monoxide  and  other organic materials.
      •'-'Assumed sulfur content of natural  gas,  0.4 grain  per 100 ft3.
      clndicated pollutant present  in emissions,  but  amount is  unknown.
      ^Emissions include those  from burning  waste wood.
      eMaterial below detection or  not measured.

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                 TABLE 28




                          NOVEMBER ODOR SURVEY IN LEWISTON-CLARKSTON AREA
268
Odor Type
Pulp mill
Wood smoke
Burning
leaves
Wet grass ,
misty
Gasoline ,
oil, tar
Rotten
flesh
Rubbish
An ima 1
odors
Miscella-
neous
Total
Clarkston
51 Students
Positive
Responses
238
228
92
41
23
12
66
19
43
762
Total
Positive
Response, %
31.2
3000
12.1
5.4
3.0
1.6
8.6
2.5
5.6
100.0
Clarkston Heights
7 Students
Positive
Responses
45
41
8
5
4
8
12
11
14
148
Total
Positive
Response, %
30.4
27o7
5.4
3.4
207
5.4
8.1
7.4
9.5
100.0
Lewiston
32 Students
Positive
Responses
107
76
19
3
3
1
5
0
8
222
Total
Positive
Response, %
48.2
34.2
806
Io3
103
0.5
2.3
0.0
3.6
100.0
Lewiston Orchards
30 £
Positive
Responses
52
78
22
11
5
2
12
8
6
196
students
Total
Positive
Response, %
26.5
39.8
1102
5.6
206
1.0
6.1
4.1
3.1
100.0

-------
APPENDIX B
                                               TABLE  29




                           APRIL ODOR  SURVEY IN LEWISTON-CLARKSTON AREA*
268
Odor Type
Pulp mill
Wood smoke
Burning
leaves
Wet grass,
misty
Gasoline ,
oil, tar
Rotten
flesh
Rubbish
An ima 1
odors
Miscella-
neous
Total
Clarkston
37 Si
Positive
Responses
134
28
7
2
4
6
42
5
32
260
.udents
Total
Positive
Response, %
51.6
10.8
2.7
0.8
1.5
2.3
16.2
1.9
12.3
100.0
Clarkston Heiqhts
6 Students
Positive
Responses
5
14
0
7
0
0
5
2
14
47
Total
Positive
Response, %
10.6
29.8
0.0
14.9
0.0
0.0
10.6
4.3
29.8
100.0
Lewiston
37 Students
Positive
Reponses
63
39
4
12
28
1
10
5
65
227
Total
Positive
Response, %
27.7
17.2
1.8
5.3
12.3
0.4
4.4
2.2
28.6
100.0
Lewiston Orchards
30 Students
Positive
Responses
31
41
10
9
4
1
4
12
47
159
Total
Positive
Response, %
19.5
25.8
6.3
5.7
2.5
0.6
2.5
7.5
29.6
100.0
                                                                                                           to

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                         215
                          TABLE  30

                                                  222
       KRAFT PULP PRODUCTION  IN  THE UNITED  STATES
                  ;                          Million

       Year       '	Tons/Year


       1957       .                .            12.8


       1958                                   13.1


       1959                                   14.9


       1960                                   15.3


       1961                                   16.1


       1962                                   17.4


       1963                                   18.7


       1964                                   20.4


       1965                                   22.3


       1966                                   24.4


       1967                                   23.9

-------
                                                            216
APPENDIX B
                             TABLE 31
          SOURCES OF ODOROUS EMISSIONS IN COKE PLANTS
                                                     231
Source of Emission
       Cause of Emission
Condensation
  Unburnt gases escaping from
    the gas torches
      In normal operation with
        torch shut off
      With torch open during
        operational failures

  Gases escaping from water
    seals

  Outflow collectors on
    coolers; collector and
      separator tanks

Ammonia Scrubber
  Outflow collectors and
    collector tanks

  Secondary coolers for
    primary-cooler outflow  (in
      semi-direct process)

Benzol Scrubber and Plant
  Outflow receivers of
    scrubbers and washing oil
      tanks

  Cooler-ventilating lines
Pesulfurization of Gas
  Outflow receivers and tanks
    for scrubbing fluid
Leakage at stop valves

Failure of ignition device


Defective seals


Gas escape from liquids




Gas escape from washing of fluid
Escape of hydrogen sulfide with
  the cooling-tower vapors
Gas escape from washing fluid
Escape of sulfur-containing
  compounds with low boiling
    point, together with
      ventilating gases

Gas escape from washing fluid

-------
APPENDIX
                                              TABLE  32

             ODOR CONCENTRATIONS AND EMISSION RATES  FROM  INEDIBLE REDUCTION  PROCESSES"
51
Source
Rendering cooker,
dry-batch type
Blood cooker, dry-
batch type"
Feather drier,
steamtubec
Blood spray
drierc'a
Grease-drying tank,
air blowing
156°F
170°F
225°F
Odor Concentration
(odor unit/scf)
Range
5,000 to
500,000
10,000 to
1 million
600 to
25,000
600 to
1,000

Typical Avq
50,000
100,000
2,000
800
4,500
15,000
60,000
Typical Moisture
Content of
Feeding Stocks (%)
50
90
50
60
<5
Exhaust Products
(scf/ton of feeda)
20,000
38,000
77,000
100,000
100 scfm
per tank
Odor Emission Rate
Odor unit/
ton of feed
1,000 x 10s
3,800 x 106
153 x 10s
80 x 106

Odor unit/
min
25,000,000

50,000,000
25,000,000

        aAssuming 5 percent moisture in solid products of system.
        ^Noncondensible gases are neglected in determining emission rates.
        °Exhaust gases are assumed to contain 25 percent moisture.
         Blood handled in spray drier before any appreciable decomposition occurs.
                                                                                                      to

-------
APPENDIX B
                                            TABLE 33
                      TYPICAL ODOR EMISSIONS FROM ROTARY FISH MEAL  DRIERS
                                    WITHOUT ODOR CONTROL
                                                        179


Drier
A
A
B
B
B
C
D


Feed Rate
(tons per hour)
10
15
7
10
14
9
6


Type of
Scrap
Tuna
Mackerel
Tuna
Tuna
Tuna
Tuna
Tuna

Temp at
Drier
Discharge
OF
220
220
220
240
300
200
180

Exhaust
Gas Volume
(scf per mina)
18,500
18,500
9,000
10,000
8,000
17,000
9,800
Odor
Concen-
tration
(odor units
per scf")
1,500
1,500
700
1,500
4,000
2,500
2,000
Odor
Emission
Rate
(odor units
per min)
27.8 x 10s
27.8 x 106
6.3 x 10s
15 x 10s
32 x 106
42.5 x 106
19.6 x 10s

Odor Emission
Rate
(odor units per
ton of feed)
167 x 106
111 x 10s
54 x 106
90 y 106
137 x 106
284 x 105
196 y 106
     -.Standard cubic  feet per minute.
      Odor units  per  standard cubic foot (70 F and 14.7 psia).

-------
APPENDIX B




                                    TABLE 34




             ODOR EMISSIONS FROM APARTMENT HOUSE  INCINERATORS138
Test Number

Odor units per scf
Dry flue gas, scf X 1,000
Total odor units x 1,000
Odor units x 1,000 per
100 Ib refuse
Burning rate, 100 Ib/hr
Odor units x 1,000 per min
1
2.5
263
657
240
1.22
4.90
2
14
211
2,950
1,070
1.38
2407
3
5
618
3,090
755
0.546
6092
4
100
131
13,100
5,000
1.74
145
5
8
144
1,150
930
Oo
9.





620
63
                                                                                            to

-------
APPENDIX B
220
                           TABLE 35

      ODOR  INTENSITY OF DIESEL EXHAUST AND CONCENTRATION
                 OF  ALDEHYDES (AS FORMALDEHYDE)
Odor
Strenqth
0
1
2
3
4
5
Odor Intensity
No odor
Very faint
Faint
Easily noticeable
Strong
Very strong
Aldehyde
Reference
239

.52
5.5
48
420

Concentration
(as HCHO)*
, ppm
Reference Reference
72 297

o95
4
18
80

7.1
12
21
35
60
100
         *Smoothed values.

-------
APPENDIX B

                                      TABLE  36

       COMPUTED CONCENTRATIONS AT ODOR THRESHOLDS OF  DILUTED  DIESEL EXHAUST
Odor Units/scfa
ppm
of Diesel ppjn ppm _ ppm ,_ Formal,-
Subiect Trials Exhaust NC
)SD CHto'u Acrolein" dehvde°
                                I. 500 rpm,  ZERO LOAD
A
B
C
D
E
F
Avq
4
4
3
4
6
5

215
385
205
140
190
360
249
0020
0.11
Oo21
0.31
0.23
0.12
0.20
0.27
0.15
0.28
0.42
0.31
0.16
0.26
0.019
0.010
0.020
0.029
0.021
0.011
0.018
00021
0.012
0.022
0.033
0.024
0.013
0.021
                               II. 1,600 rpm, FULL LOAD
A
B
C
D
E
F
Avg
7
8
4
4
6
3

450
475
215
175
195
320
305
0.89
0.84
1.85
2.28
2a05
1.25
1.53
0.10
0.09
0.21
0.26
0.23
0.14
0017
0.018
0.017
00038
0,046
0.042
0.025
0.031
0.034
0.032
0.072
0.088
0.079
0.048
0.059
       aVolume of dilution air per volume of raw diesel exhaust at  the  odor  threshold.
        Computed by dividing concentration values by the odor units/scf.   Odor  thresholds
of nitrogen dioxide, acrolein, and formaldehyde are 4.0, 0.4-6.6, and 0.2-1.8,
respectively.
       cCalculated from 3.4 |a infrared band as hexane.
                                                                                             tSJ

-------
APPENDIX B
                                            TABLE 37

                               ANALYSIS OF DIESEL ENGINE EXHAUST61
Enqine A Exhaust
Idle
Half Load
Fuel EQ Fuel Fe Fuel E Fuel F
Formaldehyde , ppm
Acrolein, ppm
Total aldehydes , ppm
Total carbonyls , ppm
Total
unsaturation , ppm
NOX , ppm
Color, ml
Avg
SDd
Avg
SD
Avg
SD
Avg
SD
Avg
SD
Avg
SD
Avg
SD
Threshold 8,
Diesel identification 4,
Otojectional 1,
« r~

34.9
200
8.0
0.9
56.4
3oO
165.0
20.2
75o5
6.4
288
21
15.0
1.0
000
400
650

32.3
4.5
8.4
1.4
58.8
3.9
149.3
13.6
54.5
6.1
256
18
16.1
2.2
6,900
3,550
1,650

9.2
1.0
2.1
0.5
13.8
0.8
270oO
36.3
130.8
16.3
1,635
42
1.9
0.3
ODOR AT
7,800
4,180
1,380

12.1
1.2
2.8
0.4
17.3
1.4
220.7
20.4
111.2
26.2
1,651
47
2.0
0.0
DILUTION,
7,200
3,700
1,650

T-
Enaine B Exhaust
Idle
Fuel E Fuel F
12.6
1.6
3.9
0.5
18.3
1.6
49.5
10.4
18.2
3.2
130
10
4.7
0.4
10.4
2.1
3.7
0.7
15.2
3.6
56.5
11.2
19.0
3.9
142
17
4.5
0.5
Full
Fuel E
19.3
3.7
4.1
0.6
30.3
1.0
93.6
4.5
43.2
9.9
1,121
108
5.0
0.2
Load
Fuel F
23.3
2.0
5.0
1.0
25,3
5.4
97.0
9.0
56.6
19.1
1,159
84
4.5
0.6
ODOR UNITS
7,900
4,100
1,300
d^
7,500
2,650
800

8,800
4,500
1,450

8,400
4,800
1,780
NJ
to
       aEngine A:  four-cycle engine0
       ^Engine B:  two-cycle engine.
       CSD: Standard deviation.
 Fuel E: No. 1 grade.
eFuel F: No. 2 grade.

-------
                                   TABLE 38


         DIESEL EXHAUST  EMISSIONS AND PERCENT OF TIME AT EACH POWER
          SETTING FOR TWO-CYCLE DIESEL BUS OPERATING IN DETROIT
159
Power
Idle
32 mph
35 mph
51 mph
Setting

, 25 hp
, 65 hp
, 122 hp
Exhaust
Flow
(scfm)
120
408
630
640
Percent
of
Time
57.5
21.5
7.7
13.3
CO
(ppm)
160
145
617
850
Hydrocarbons
as CH4 (ppm)
340
457
570
750
Nitrogen Oxides
as NOs (ppm)
160
305
650
810
Odor
Dilution
Threshold3
330
440
540
790
Odor
Emission
Rate
39,500
180,000
340,000
505,000
aOdor units/scf.

 Odor units/min.
                                                                                          NJ
                                                                                          u>

-------
                                                          224
APPENDIX B


                       TABLE  39

     ODOR EMISSIONS FROM JET  AIRCRAFT  EXHAUST  159
Engine Type	Power (%)	Normal Use       Odor  Units/scf
T-56-A7
(Turboprop)


100
75

Take-off
Cruise and

100

                                approach

                    65          Idle                    75
T-57-19W
(Conventional jet) 100
TF-33-P5
(Fan jet)
100
75
65
100
75
65
Take-off
Cruise
Idle
Take-off
Approach
Idle
600
660
15
75
500
1000

-------
APPENDIX B
                                                                225
                                TABLE 40

           NUMBER,  TYPE,  AND LOCATION OF ODOR OBSERVATIONS
                      NEAR JOHN F. KENNEDY AIRPORT 201
Type of Odor
Total number of observations
Total number of positive observations
Percentage of positive observations-'3
1. Chemical odors (including chemical.
sulfurous, soap or detergent, re-
finery, medicinal, vanilla or
coumarin, bleach or chlorine,
ammonia, other)
Percentage of positive observations0
2. Food processing odors (including
coffee roasting, bakery, brewery,
restaurant, grain, smoking fish.
other, unknown)
Percentage of positive observations0
3. Combustion odors including the
following :
Gasoline and diesel engine exhaust
Coke-oven and coal gas odors
(steel mills)
Maladjusted heating systems
Coal smoke
Smokey
Other
Unknown
Jet exhaust smoke or odor
Percentage of positive observations0
4. General industrial odors (includ-
ing asphalt, plastics, solvents,
fertilizer plants, paint and
related industries, oily, fuel
odor, other, unknown)
Percentage of positive observations0
Total Observations by Zones3-
1
238
62
26.1
1




1.6
1



1.6
10

0

2
0
6
0
2
0
0
16.1
11




17.7
2
260
65
25.0
3




4.6
1



1.5
36

0

0
3
0
13
4
15
0
55.4
2




3.1
3
335
146
43.6
1




0.68
1



0.68
46

11

0
2
1
23
0
9
0
31.5
0




0
4
198
61
30.8
2




3.3
1



1.6
22

5

6
0
0
8
3
0
0
36.1
8




13.1
                                                              (continued)

-------
APPENDIX
226
                         TABLE 40 (Continued)

            NUMBER, TYPE, AND LOCATION OF ODOR OBSERVATIONS
                      NEAR JOHN F. KENNEDY AIRPORT
Type of Odor
5. Animal odors (including rendering.
stockyards, poultry, fish,
organic fertilizer, meat proces-
sing plant, other, unknown)
Percentage of positive observations0
6. Odors from combustible waste
(including open -dump fires, city
incinerators burning garbage,
home incinerators, backyard
trash fires and wood smoke,
burning rubber, other, unknown)
Percentage of positive observations0
7. Decomposition odors (including
sewage, nonburning garbage,
o ther , unknown )
Percentage of positive observations0
8. Vegetation odors (including
general, freshly cut wood.
flowers and/or flowering shrubs,
marshland odor, fresh fruit odors,
plowed or excavated soil)
Percentage of positive observations0
9. Miscellaneous odors (including
general, foul — not specified,
putrid — source not specified,
not pleasant, smog, clean or
fresh, ocean smell, dust, tobacco)
Percentage of positive observations
SL
Total Observations by Zones
1
0



0
14





22.6
2


3.2
22




35.5





1.6
2
1



1.5
5





7.7
1


1.5
11




16.9





7.7
3
3



2.1
14





9.6
1


0.68
14




9.6





45.2
r
4 _j
7 '



11.5
t
\
6


i

|
9.8
9


14.8
4
]
1


6 * 6





3.3
     a. Zones 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all within 3 miles of the airport
premises and in a northerly direction from the airport.  Zones 1
and 4 are in NNW direction, zone 2 in a N direction, and Zone 3
in a NNE direction.
     b. Total number of positive observations  xioo
            Total number of observations
     c. Number of odor types observed          xlOO
        Total number of nnsitive observations

-------
APPENDIX B
                                         TABLE  41
                           CONTROL OF  ODORS BY  INCINERATION
                                                             26
Incinerator
Average Odor Concentration* Exhaust
in Incinerator Gas
(odor units/scf) Flow
Application Temperature (°F) Inlet,
Wire enameling
Oven, portable unit
Field test
Glass fiber
Curing-oven field

Abrasive wheel
Curing-oven laboratory
test
Test 1
Automobile paint
Bake-oven field test
Test 2

Hard -board curing
Oven laboratory test
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,009
1,250
1,352
1,200
1,400

1,350
1,450
1,350
1,450
1,400
1,500
1,300
2,500
1,300
550
380
255
800
1,600

260
170
650
680
1,000
1,400
Outlet (scfm) (
2,100
350
70
625 14,000
53 14,000
25 14,000
10
32

14
10
10
18
40
15
Effect of
Incineration
on Odor
Strength
% reduction)
-61
86
97
-14
86
90
98
98

95
94
93
97
96
98
       *Based on syringe dilution  technique.

-------
APPENDIX B
        TABLE 42. ODOR EMISSIONS FROM TYPICAL  INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT AND  ODOR CONTROL DEVICES
                                                                                                137
Type of Equipment
or Operation
Rendering cooker
(Inedible charge)
Dry batch type
Rendering Cooker
(Blood drying)
Dry batch type
Rendering cooker
(Edible charge)
Dry batch type
Wet batch type
Continuous type
Odor Levels and Emission
Rates, Uncontrolled
Vent Gas
Odor
Concentration
Range
(ou/scfa)
5,000
to
500,000e
(Mode 50,000)
10,000
to g
l,000,000y
2,500^
350n .
650 to 7,000h'1
Model
Odor
Emission
Rate
( ou/min )

25,000,000
Not
measured
70, 00^
Odor Levels and Emission Rates, Controlled
Type of
Odor
Control Equipment
Direct-Fired (DF>*
Surface
condenser**
Jet condenser
followed by a
D-F after-
burner*
Surface condenser
followed by a
D-F af£er-
burner
Jet (or contact
condenser) **


Vent Gas
Odor
Concentration
(ou/scfa)
100 to 150
(Mode 120)
100,000
to
10,000,000r
(Mode
500,000}
20 to 50
(Mode 25)
50 to 100
(Mode 75)
2,000
to
20,000
(Mode 10,000)


Odor
Emission
Rate ,
( ou/min )
90,000
12,000,000
2,000
6,000
70,000


Temperature0
and
Efficiency
1,200°F
99+%
80°F
Negative-^
1,200°F
99+%
1,200°F
99+%
80°F
80%


                                                                                             (continued)

-------
APPENDIX




 TABLE 42. ODOR EMISSIONS FROM TYPICAL  INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT AND ODOR CONTROL  DEVICES137 (Continued)
Type of Equipment
or Operation
Fish-meal drier
Air blowing of
fish oils
Air blowing of
linseed oil
Varnish cooker
batch type
Odor Levels and Emission
Rates, Uncontrolled
Vent Gas
Odor
Concentration
Range
(ou/scfa)
1,000 to
5,000
(Mode 2,000)
10,000 to
70,000
(Mode 50,000)
(Estimated)
120,000h
10,000 to
200,000e
(Mode 25,000}
Model
Odor
Emission
Rate
( ou/min )
50,000,000
30,000,000
Not
measured
10,000,000
Odor Levels and Emission Rates, Controlled
Type of
Odor
Control Equipment
Packed column
type scrubber**
Chlorination*
plus packed col-
umn scrubber**
Direct-fired
afterburner*
Direct-fired
afterburner *
Recirculating
spray contact
scrubber fol-
lowed by a DF
afterburner *
Rec irculat ing
spray (contact)
scrubber**
Direct fired
afterburner*
Recirculating
spray (contact)
scrubber**
Vent Gas
Odor
Concentration
(ou/scfa)
200 to
1,000
(Mode 400)
30 to 50
(Mode 40)
25 to 75
(Mode 50)
(Estimated)
2,000
10 to 25
(Mode 20)
20,000
100 to 400
(Mode 250)
100,000h
Odor
Emission
Rate
( ou/min )
10,000,000
1,000,000
SO^OO1
Not
measured
10,000
Not
measured
100,000
Not
measured
Temperature
and
Efficiency
70°F
80%
70°F
98%
1,200°F
99+%
1,200°F
97.5%
1,200°F
99+%

1,200UF
99%

                                                                                          (continued)

-------
APPENDIX


  TABLE  42. ODOR EMISSIONS FROM TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT AND ODOR CONTROL DEVICES (Continued)
Type of Equipment
or Operation
Lithographing oven
metal decorating
Coffee roaster
batch type
Coffee roaster
continuous type
Bread baking oven
Tallow hydrolyzer
("Fat splitter")
Odor Levels and Emission
Rates, Uncontrolled
Vent Gas
Odor
Concentration
Range
( ou/scf )
700 to
10,000^
(Mode 3,000)
300 to
30,000e
500 tq
1,000^
(Mode 1,000)
(Estimated)
l,000h
Not
measured
Model
Odor
Emission
Rate
( ou/min )
15,000,000
3,000,00^
(Estimated)
3,000,000]
Not
measured
Not
measured
Odor Levels and Emission Rates, Controlled
Type of
Odor
Control Equipment
Direct-fired
a f te rbur ne r *
Catalytic
afterburner *
Direct-fired
afterburner*
Direct-fired
afterburner*

Surface
condenser0 fol-
lowed by a
direct-fired
afterburner*
Surface
condenser**
Vent Gas
Odor
Concentration
(ou/scfa)
50 to 500
(Mode 200)
450n
3,000h
150 to
15,000n
300 to
1,000
(Mode 350)
(Estimated)

2,000,000
2,000
750
150
70
6,000
Odor
Emission
Rate b
( ou/min )
1,200,000
2,300,000
1,700,000"
Estimated)
l,200,r '0]

Not
measured
Not
measured
Q
Temperature
and
Efficiency
1,200°F
95%
l,000°Fm
800°F
1,100°F
50%
900°F
65%

940°F
1,100°F
1,200°F
1, 300^F
1,400°F

                                                                                            (continued)
to
u>

-------
APPENDIX

  TABLE 42„ ODOR EMISSIONS FROM TYPICAL  INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT AND ODOR CONTROL DEVICES (Continued)
Type of Equipment
or Operation
Phthalic anhydride
manufacturing unit
Odor Levels and Emission
Rates, Uncontrolled
Vent Gas
Odor
Concentration
Range
(ou/scfa)
1,800 to
3,500^
(Mode 2,500)
Model
Odor
Emission
Rate ,
( ou/min )
15,000,000
Odor Levels E
Type of
Odor
Control Equipment
Direct-fired
afterburner*
Catalytic
afterburner *
Catalytic
afterburner*
md Emission Ra
Vent Gas
Odor
Concentration
(ou/scfa)
45 to 120
(Mode 75)
1,800
180
ites, Controlled
Odor
Emission
Rate b
( ou/min )
500,000
11,000,000
1,100,000
Temperature0
and
Ef f iciencv
1,200°F
97%
745°F
27%
SIS^F"
93%
        *Afterburner odor control devices0
       **Nonafterburner odor control devices.
        aOdor units per standard cubic  foot  (at   70°F  and  1407  psia)„
        "Odor units discharged per minute, based  on  average  volumetric  discharge  rate and modal
odor concentration.
        cTemperature of gases after leaving  flame-contact  zone  (afterburners);  temperature of
vent gases in other cases.
        ^Odor control efficiency, on a  modal odor concentration basis.
        eOdor concentrations in batch processes vary with  materials  charged and phase of operation.
        ^Surface condensers increase odor  concentrations in  the vent  gases  but  reduce total odor
emission rates.
        9Hundred-fold increase from beginning to  end of cycle.
        •^One test only.
        •^Samples collected from several points of odor emissions.
        ^In continuous processes, odor  concentrations  vary with temperatures maintained and
materials charged.
        ^Chlorine  (20 ppm) mixed with drier  off-gases, which are then scrubbed^   More or less
chlorine increases odor concentrations.
         Estimated from two tests only.
        mMaximum temperature at which this catalytic unit  can operate.
        "Outlet odor concentration rises  and falls with  inlet odor concentration,
        °The surface condenser is an integral part of  the  hydrolyzing unit.   Note  that low
temperature incineration  increases odor concentration  above  condenser vent  level.

-------
APPENDIX B
                                              TABLE 43

                  ODOR  REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES OF CONDENSERS OR AFTERBURNERS,
                      OR BOTH, VENTING A TYPICAL DRY RENDERING COOKER*180
Concentra-
tion (odor
units/scf )
50,000




Emission
Rate (odor
units/min )
25,000,000




Condenser
Type
None
Surface
Surface
Contact
Contact
Condensate
Temperature

80
140
80
140
Afterburner
Temperature
( F)
1,200
None
1,200
None
1,200
Concentration
(odor units/
scf )
100 to 150
(Mode 120)
100,000 to
10 million
(Mode 500,000)
50 to 100
(Mode 75)
2,000 to
20,000
(Mode 10,000)
20 to 50
(Mode 25)
Modal Emission
Rate (odor
units/min )
90,000
12,500,000
6,000
250,000
2,000
Odor
Removal
Effi-
ciency
99.40
50
99.98
99
99.99
       *Based on  a  hypothetical cooler that emits 500 scfm of vapor containing 5 percent
noncondensible gases.

-------
APPENDIX  B                                                 233
                          TABLE 44

  ODOR  REDUCTION  IN POLLUTED AIR BY POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE2-1-3
Odorant Concentration
Odor Units/scf
Pollutant

Butanethiol
Pentanethiol
Hexanethiol
Heptanethiol
Octanethiol
OTHER
Mercaptoacetic acid
2-Mercaptoethanol
Allyl isothiocyanate
Thiophenol
Thiophene

Dime thy lamine
Trimethylamine
Tri ethy lamine
Cadaver ine
Indole
Skatole

Phenol
o-Cresol
o-Chlorophenol
m-Chlorophenol
p-Chlorophenol
Solution 1D Solution 2C
MSRCAPTANS
200,000
>100,000
85,000
3,200
3,500
SULFUR COMPOUNDS
65
30
2,500
1,300
4,000
AMINES
1,300
2,700
60-70
20
5
60-100
PHENOLS
11
20
200
45
5

33a
16a
10. 5a
20a
6.5a

1
1
1
13a
13a

20
20
50-65a
1
1
1

1
1
1
25a
1
MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Styrene
Allyl acetate
Acrolein
Benzaldehyde
Acetaldehyde
1-Butanol
Off-gas of bone elevators
(rendering plant)
Cooker condensate
(rendering plant)
Off-gas of asphalt plant
2,000
1,700
140,000
80
1,700
150

100-140

4,000
15-20
10a
25^
1
1
200
40a

20-253

250a
1
    aResidual odor  characteristics  much improved,
    ^Malodorous air bubbled  through water,  pH 8.5.
    GMalodorous air bubbled  through 1% solution of  potassium
permanganate, pH  8.5.

-------
APPENDIX B
                                            TABLE 45




      TYPICAL COSTS  OF BASIC AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT INSTALLED IN LOS ANGELES  COUNTY'
.44
Source
Airblown asphalt system
Bulk gasoline loading
rack
Catalytic reforming
unit
Chip dryer
Chrome plating
Coffee roaster
Core oven
Crude oil distillation
unit
Debonder
Size of Equipment
500 bl/batch
667,000 gal/day
2,400 bl/day
2,500 Ib/hr
4 by 5 by 5 ft
3 tons/hr
8 by 8 by 12 ft
37,000 bl/hr
500 brake shoes/hr
Cost of
Basic
Equipment
$ 10,000
88,000
265,000
3,000
2,000
35,000
4,000
3,060,000
1,800
Type of Control
Equipment
Afterburner
Vapor control system
Flare and sour water
oxidizer
Afterburner
Scrubber
Cyclone and after-
burner
Afterburner
Vapor control system
Afterburner
Cost of
Control
Equipment
$ 3,000
50,000
6,000
3,000
800
8,000
1,500
10,000
300
                                                                                   (continued)

-------
                               TABLE 45 (Continued)




TYPICAL COSTS OP BASIC AND  CONTROL EQUIPMENT INSTALLED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Source
Deep fat fryer, food
Delayed coker unit
Drum reclamation
incinerator
Fixed roof storage tank
for gasoline
Flue-fed incinerator
Insulation production,
including cupola,
blow chamber, and
curing oven
Lithographing oven
Multiple-chamber
incinerator,
industrial and
commercial
Size of Equipment
1,000 Ib/hr
9 , 300 b I/day
60 bl/hr
200 bl/hr
80,000 bl
Most sizes
5,000 Ib/hr
240 ft/min
50 Ib/hr
500 Ib/hr
6,000 Ib/hr
Cost of
Basic
Equipment
$ 15,000
4,000,000
10,000
25,000
50,000
4,000-
7,000
13,000
78,000
800
6,500
75,000
Type of Control
Equipment
Afterburner
Scrubber ( serving
3 cokers )
Afterburner
Afterburner
New floating roof
tank
Afterburner
Baghouse, scrubber
and afterburner
Afterburner

Cost of
Control
Equipment
$ 1,500
385,000
2,000
5,000
132,000
2,500
30,000
15,000

                                                                          (continued)

-------
APPENDIX B
                                   TABLE 45  (Continued)



     TYPICAL COSTS OF BASIC AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT INSTALLED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Source
Multiple-chamber
incinerator,
pathological
Multiple-chamber
in c in e r ator , wir e
reclamation
Multiple-chamber
in c in er ato r , with
continuous feed bin
Natural gas plant
Oil-water separator
Phthalic anhydride
manufacturing plant
Pot furnace, type metal
Size of Equipment
50 Ib/hr
200 Ib/hr
100 Ib/hr
1,000 Ib/hr
250 Ib/hr
3,000 Ib/hr
20,000,000 ft3/
day
300,000 bl/day
25,000,000. Ib/yr
16,000 Ib
Cost of
Basic
Equipment
$ 1,000
4,500
1,200
15,000
5,000
45,000
220,000
170,000
1,200,000
9,000
Type of Control
Equipment



Vapor manifold and
flare
Floating roof
Afterburner and
baghouse
Afterburner
Cost of
Control
Equipment



$ 5,000
80,000
195,000
3,000
                                                                                 vcontinue

-------
APPENDIX B




                                    TABLE 45 (Continued)




     TYPICAL COSTS OF BASIC  AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT INSTALLED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Source
Rendered grease
processing
Rendering cooker and
drier (batch)
Rendering cooker system
( continuous )
Rotogravure press
Sewage treatment
digestion
Sewage treatment
headwords
Sewage water
reclamation
Size of Equipment
6 tons/day
4 tons/batch
15 tons/hr
5-color, 44-inch
web
900,000 gal/day
250,000,000
gal/day
17,000,000
gal/day
Cost of
Basic
Equipment
$ 10,000
10,000
100,000
340,000
800,000
550,000
1,500,000
Type of Control
Equipment
Contact condenser
and afterburner
Surface condenser
and afterburner
Surface condenser
and afterburner
Activated carbon
filter
Water seals and
flares
Covers
Covers and aeration
tanks
Cost of
Control
Equipment
$ 2,500
15,000
25,000
40,000
7,000
20,000
25,000
                                                                               (continued'

-------
APPENDIX B

                                     TABLE  45  (Continued)

     TYPICAL COSTS OF BASIC AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT INSTALLED IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Source
Size of Equipment.
  Cost of
   Basic
 Equipment
  Type of Control
     Equipment
  Cost of
  Control
Equipment
 >moke generator and
  smokehouse
11 by 14 by 11 ft
    18,000
Precipitator, scrub-
  ber, and after-
  burner
$ 42,000
 Sulfur recovery plant
2 parallel units,
  65 tons/day each
10 tons/day
2,840 Ib/day
8,000 Ib/day
1,400,000

  265,000
   30,000
   60,000
Incinerator

Incinerator
Incinerator
Incinerator
  30,000

   5,000
   1,000
   1,000
 Jynthetic  rubber
  manufactur ing
30,000 tons/year
1,600,000
Vapor manifold
  and flare
 250,000
 Jynthetic  solvent dry
   cleaner
60 Ib/batch
   14,000
Activated carbon
  filter
   3,000
 Garnish  cookers  (2)
250 gal/each
    4,000
Afterburner
   5,500
                                                                              (continued)
                                                                                                CO

-------
                                 TABLE 46


CONTROL EXPENDITURES  BY TYPES OF EMISSIONS IN THE  PETROLEUM INDUSTRY71
                          (Thousands of Dollars)
Year
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
Sulfur
Compounds
$ 6,154
6,154
4,087
2,693
4,495
5,560
1,474
2,191
4,230
1,795
7,901
Hydrocarbons
(Combustion)
$ 4,977
4,977
2,235
3,640
2,230
1,501
6,143
3,829
4,515
5,497
6,959
Hydrocarbons
(Recovery)
$ 5,325
5,325
7,628
3,124
7,152
6,497
2,501
4,012
2,421
2,700
3,821
Smoke and
Particulates
$ 2,150
2,150
449
2,780
780
3,437
5,257
2,109
3,868
3,840
5,361
Odors and
Fumes Total
$ 1,171
1,171
981
1,091
1,047
4,381
3,046
2,711
2,030
2,101
9,368
$ 19,777
19,777
15,380
13,328
15,704
21,376
18,421
14,852
17,064
15, 933
33,410
Total
    $46,734
$46,503
$50,506
$32,181
$29,098
$205, 022
                                                                                        t-o
                                                                                        to

-------
APPENDIX B
                                      TABLE 47

       ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THREE TYPES OF CONDENSERS FOR RENDERING PLANTS255
Condenser Type
Basic Cost
     Capital Charges
(U.S.  Dollar Equivalent)
      Installation.
        aBased on a 2,500-hour working year.

        3Water: 17 cents/1,000 gal.

        "Electricity:  2 cents/unit.
Total
Direct-spray condenser
Surface condenser with cooling tower
Air-cooled condenser

Spray condenser
Surface condenser
Air-cooled condenser

$3,550
4,320

Water
Costb
$850
29.75


$1,550
1,000
Operating Charges5
Electricity
Costc
$ 56
168
280
$2,000
5,050
5,320

Total
Cost
$906
198
280
                                                                                            O

-------
APPENDIX C

-------
                                                        241
                     OLFACTION THEORIES




The, Dyson-Wright Vibration Theory


        In 1937, Dyson6^ proposed three requirements for an



odorous substance:  volatility, lipid solubility, and intra-



molecular vibrations which give rise to Raman shifts in the


region 3,500 to 1,400 cm" .  Dyson68 had actually proposed



the essential factor of vibrations in 1928, the year the


Raman effect was discovered; then in 1937 he suggested that


the vibrational frequencies of molecules could be assessed


from the Raman shifts.  Based on limited data, he proposed


the region 3,500 to 1,400 cm"1 as the region of  "osmic fre-



quencies" to which the nose was sensitive.  Because the


senses of hearing and vision involve sensitivities to vibra-



tions of certain frequencies, a theory of olfaction based


on  an analogous mechanism is logically appealing.  This



theory attracted much interest, but it was  quickly discarded


for the simple reason that there is no correlation between



frequencies in the 3,500 to  1,400 cm"1 range and odors.  Be-



cause the Raman and infrared spectra are related, the corre-

                                                         — 1
lation between odor and frequencies of 3,500 to  1,400 cm



would have to be correlated  with the functional  groups now



known to give rise to absorptions in this  range.

-------
                                                        242
        Dyson's theory was ignored for 20 years until it was




resurrected by Wright in 1956.307  Wright believed that the




basic idea of vibrational frequencies to which the olfactory




receptors are sensitive is correct, but that Dyson's selec-




tion of the range of osmic frequencies was wrong.  It is




known that infrared absorption resulting from the molecular




vibrations occurs in the low frequency region (the finger-




print region of infrared spectra), and Wright proposed the




region 500 to 50 cm" , in the far infrared, for osmic




frequencies.  In his theory,- the vibrational frequencies




determine the quality of an odor, whereas such factors as




volatility, adsorbability, and water-lipid solubility determine




the intensity of the odor.  The olfactory pigment is pro-




posed as having all its molecules in an electronically




excited state; the molecules do not return to the ground




state unless triggered.  The odorous molecule combines with




a pigment molecule whose vibrational frequency it matches,




thereby changing the frequency of vibration of the pigment




molecule and triggering the return of the electronically




excited molecule to the ground state.  To account for the




variety of odors, there must be a number of types of ol-




factory pigments.

-------
                                                        243
        From  the  generalization that no  instances are known




in which one  of a pair of optical  isomers has an odor and




the other does not,* Wright306 infers that the primary




process of olfaction must be  a physical  rather than a




chemical interaction.  He thinks that the slight differences




reported in the odors of some optical isomers may result




from different levels of purity.   The change in quality of




an odor upon  dilution is probably  due to the odors consist-




ing of several odors having different thresholds, so that




at lower concentrations only  certain components are detected.


      "3 Q7
Wright0 ' acknowledges three  exceptions  to his theory—




ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen  cyanide—none of




which has low frequency vibrations.




        Experimentally, Wright's vibrational theory was at




the same state in 1966 as Dyson's  theory was in 1937; namely,




there were few data to test the theory-







The Moncrieff—Amoore Stereochemical Theory



                          1 ftd.
        In 1944,  Moncrieff    proposed a new theory:  namely.




that the only prerequisites for odor were volatility and




suitable solubility-  According to this  theory, differences
        *Moncrieff190 has reported dihydrocamphenol as an

exception to this generalization.

-------
                                                        244
in intensity of odors were due to variations in volatility,




whereas differences in quality were due to different solu-




bilities in the lipoproteins of the various types of recep-




tor cells, with each type sensitive to some fundamental odor.




In 1949 he presented a revised theory185 in which the two




prerequisites were volatility and a molecular configuration




complementary to the sites of the receptors.  The latter is




an example of the lock-and-key concept well known in enzyme




and drug theory.  He suggested that there are probably




between 4 and 12 types of receptor sites, each corresponding




to a fundamental odor.  No further details were specified.




It was claimed that this  theory incorporated the good fea-




tures of most of the earlier theories and could explain most




of the important characteristics of olfaction, including the




different odors of stereoisomers,234  Moncrieff's186'189/19°




recent work has been concerned with demonstrating that




odorous compounds are readily adsorbed on the olfactory




epithelium and with emphasizing the theoretical importance




of adsorption in concentrating the molecules and thereby




enabling detection of such small amounts of substances.




        Amoore1-'-'12 ' ^^'15 has developed a detailed theory




based on Moncrieff's outline.  Two refinements were needed:

-------
                                                        245
first, to determine how many types of receptor sites exist;




second, to determine the size and shape of each of the




receptor sites.  The theory successfully accounts for the




identical odors of isotopic molecules and the different




odors of stereoisomers, the two chief contradictions to




Wright's theory.  The change in quality of odor upon dilu-




tion can be readily explained by preferential adsorption in




various sites.  An odorous molecule may fit several sites




but have a greater affinity for some of them.  At high




concentrations all sites will be occupied, whereas at low




concentrations only the preferred sites will be occupied.

-------