-------
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.
------- |