PB-251 169
HEALTH AND ANNOYANCE IMPACT OF ODOR POLLUTION
John R. Goldsmith
California State Department of Health
Prepared for:
National Environmental Research Center
October 1973
DISTRIBUTED BY:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
EPA-650/1-75-001
October 1973
Environmental Health Effects Research Series
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM THE
BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY THE SPONSORING
AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CER-
TAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RE-
LEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(/'lease read /auructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-650/1-75-001
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Health and Annoyance Impact of Odor Pollution
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
October 1973
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
John R. Goldsmith, M. D.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
California Department of Health
Berkeley, California 94704
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AA005
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-0083
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Human Studies Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Several studies were carried out on health and annoyance reactions to community
odor from pulp mills and other industrial sources. Questionnaires were used to
collect information from respondents on exposure to the odor and on health and
annoyance reactions. The health reaction section of the questionnaire included
a symptom check-list and the basic questions from the British Medical Research
Council's (MRC) questionnaire on respiratory symptoms. Exposure to odor was also
measured by dynamic olfactometry. In general, the frequency with which odor was
noticed and tne frequency and intensity with which respondents were bothered by
the odor are correlated with odor intensity and frequency as measured by dynamic
olfactometry within each community. It should, therefore, be possible to formulate
a quantitative relationship between measurements of exposure to community odors and
measurements of community reactions. Further refinement in methods and a larger
number of observations representing a broader span of exposures are necessary to
accomplish this..
In two communities only a few statistically significant differences in reported
symptoms were found related to differences in exposure. In the third area, a greater
number of such differences occurred. Symptoms showing significant differences by
exposure in at least one study included dizziness, nausea, or vomiting; headache;
runny nose; cough; sinus congestion; nose irritation; chest pain; and the MRC
symptoms of persistent cough and/or phlegm and shortness of breath.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Odors -
Annoyance
Health effects
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS Ic. COSATI Field/Group
PISCES SUBJECT TO 0V jffiE
06 S, T
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
llnrlassif ied
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (TMspage)
Unclassified
Fe-r<
(9-73)
-------
EPA-650/1-75-001
AHNOYANCE IMPACT
OF ODOR POLLUTION
by
John R. Goldsmith, M. D.
California Department of Health
Berkeley, California 94704
Contract No. 68-02-0083
Program Element No. 1AA005
EPA Project Officer: Richard C. Dickerson
Human Studies Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
October 1973
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into
five series. These five broad categories were established to
facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in
related fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH EFFECTS
RESEARCH series. This series describes projects and studies relating
to the tolerances of man for unhealthful substances or conditions.
This work is .generally assessed from a medical viewpoint, including
physiological or psychological studies. In addition to toxicology
and other medical specialities, study areas include biomedical in-
strumentation and health research techniques utilizing animals -
but always with intended application to human health measures.
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Health Effects Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following individuals had major roles in conducting
the field work and preparing this report:
Margaret Deane
Robert Graul
Sylvia Hope
Erland Jonsson
George Sanders
Linda Scott
Madeline Thresh
SuzAnne Twiss
Russell Umbraco
ill
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I . Background 1
II. Selection of Communities 1
A. Eureka 1.
B. Anderson 2
C . Carson 2
D . Richmond 3
III . Methodology 3
A. Population Surveys 3
1. Selection of Exposure Areas Within Communities 3
2. Pollutant Measurements in the Ambient Air 4
3. Stack Measurements and Exposure Estimate Based 4
on Diffusion Modeling
4. Dynamic Olfactometry 5
5 . Population Sampling 5
6. Questionnaires - Annoyance and Health Reactions 5
a . Eureka 6
b . Anderson 7
c. Carson 7
B. Community Panel Survey - Richmond 8
IV . Results - Summary 8
A. Introduction 8
B. Population Surveys 10
1. Dynamic Olfactometry 10
2 . Annoyance Reactions 10
3. Health Effects 10
4. Measurements of Particulates 11
Evaluation and Recommendations 12
A. Evaluation 12
B. Recommendations 13
iv
-------
VI. Reports
A. Community Reactions tc Odors from Pulp Mills: A Pilot Study in
Eureka, California, 19b9.
B. Health Effects of Exposure to Community Odors from Pulp Mills:
Eureka, 1971
C. Trends in Community Annoyance Reactions to Odors from Pulp Mills:
Eureka, California, 1969,1971.
^'
D. Health Effects of Pulp Mill Odor in Anderson, California, 1970.
E. A Comparison o. Postal Questionnaires and Personal Interviews
in Estimating the Frequencies With Which Symptoms are Reported
in Residential Areas Exposed to Pulp Mill Odors.
F. Annoyance and Health Reactions to Odor from Refineries and other
Industries in Carson, California, 1972
G. Richmond Odor Panel Study.
H. Evaluation of Area Differences in Exposure to Total Particulates,
SO/, and NO-j in Each Community Studied.
//
I. The measurement of Odor Concentration by Dynamic Olfactometry.
AIHL Method Number 25A.
'v
J. The Measurement of Malodor in a Community ^y Dynamic Olfactometry.
VII. Questionnaires
A. Eureka - 1969 (Annoyance Reactions)
B. Eureka - 1971 (Annoyance and Health Reactions)
C. Anderson - 1970 - Interview (Health Reactions)
D. Anderson - 1970 - Postal (Health Reactions)
E. Carson - 1971 (Annoyance and Health Reactions)
-------
HEALTH AND ANNOYANCE IMPACT OF ODOR POLLUTION
SECTION I
I. Background
The first California study of community reactions to odors in the ambient
air was undertaken with the encouragement and assistance of Dr. Erland
Jonsson, a visiting Swedish sociologist who is an expert in the field of
annoyance reactions to both odor and noise. The development of the
annoyance questionnaire used in the first Eureka study was largely due to
him and was modeled after a similar questionnaire used in a previous
study conducted in Clarkston, Washington. The selection of Eureka as the
initial study location was based on the obvious exposure to pulp mill odor
as well as local interest and the numerous complaints received from the
public concerning the odors.
SECTION II
II. Selection of Communities
As called for in the scope of work, three communities were chosen
to represent health and annoyance reactions to exposure to odor from
pulp mills and refineries. A fourth was chosen as the site of a pilot
study of reactions of a community panel over a period of time. These
are described briefly as follows:
A. Eureka: Eureka was chosen as the site of a second survey for
several reasons:
1. Extensive evaluation of exposure and reactions to odor
had been conducted in the previous survey and a second
survey would permit evaluation of trends over time.
-------
2. Only limited data on health had been obtained in the first survey.
The second survey was planned to include collection of more
extensive health data as well as information on background vari-
ables and annoyance reactions for comparison with the first
survey.
B. Anderson: Anderson, located in the northern Sacramento Valley
was chosen as one of the communities to represent exposure to pulp
mill odors. Complaints concerning the odors had been received from
citizens, and the Department's Air and Industrial Hygiene Laboratory
was planning an evaluation of the environmental aspects of the odor
problem under contract with the California Air Resources Board. These
results would be available to us. The questionnaire used in Anderson
was limited to health reactions, and data were collected both by
personal interview and postal questionnaire, permitting an evaluation
of results obtained by the two methods.
C. Carson: Carson, a community in the greater Los Angeles area, was
chosen to represent exposure to refinery odor. However, the community
is also exposed to odors from other industry, Including other repre-
sentatives of the petrochemical industry, and it was decided that no
attempt would be made to distinguish reactions to the different odors.
In addition, the community is exposed to general L.A. smog odors,
including automobile exhaust. The questionnaire survey was similar
to that used in the second Eureka survey and was designed to measure
background variables, annoyance reactions and health effects.
-------
D. Richmond: Richmond, a community located near refineries and with a
history of odor complaints, was selected as the site of a study
utilizing a panel of community members who were to report at speci-
fied times concerning their experience with odor in the community.
SECTION III
II. Methodology
A. Population Surveys
1. Selection of Exposure Areas Within Communities.
In general, if a point source of odor is identified and meteoro-
logic data are available to indicate the probable course of atmo-
spheric dispersion of odor, it is possible to identify locations
in which odor exposures will differ in relation to a single source.
This method has been used to select areas differing with respect to
exposure throughout the studies to be reported here. In most cases,
such allocations by area provided a presumptive gradient for odor
exposure. Three areas were used in each of the communities. The
day-to-day variation in odor exposure may be different from that
which is presumed to occur as a result of location and meteorologic
factors. For example, this could occur if the prevailing meteoro-
logic patterns were not the patterns which were occurring during
a specific hour, day or week. In every case, the choice of ex-
posure area was made bearing in mind the need for comparability on
other variables. These included basic geographic characteristics
-------
and economic status as indicated by visual inspection of
housing. In addition, questions have been used in each
survey in order to determine the demographic comparability
of the areas, and the reports contain the results of this.
2. Pollution Measurements in the Ambient Air
Pollution measurements have been made as planned, but the
measurable pollutants are not in general the odorants to
which the subjects are presumed to be responding. Tabulation
of these measurements in detail are available for inspection.
In general, however, the measurement of such pollutants as
methylmercaptan, specific hydrocarbons, or hydrogen sulfide
has not been systematically possible because the concentrations
of these odorants which produce annoyance and other reactions
were substantially lower than the level detectable using the
available monitoring equipment. The possible exception to this
is hydrogen sulfide, which was not a prominent pollutant in
any of these studies. However, efforts were made in the first
Eureka study to make such measurements and these data are
available. Pollutants measured in each study are indicated
on Table 1.
3. Stack Measurement and Exposure Estimate Based on Diffusion
Modeling.
In the first Eureka study and in the follow-up study, stack
sampling was carried out, and estimates from these measurements
-------
can be used to determine whether the point source emits com-
parable levels of pollution on the days in which comparison's
are made.
4. Dynamic Olfactometry.
Dynamic olfactometry was carried out in all studies except that
in the Richmond area. Dynamic olfactometry equipment was improved
during the work on this project, and the technique and design of
the equipment was modified. Dynamic olfactometry uses a panel
of trained laboratory workers whose odor threshold is determined
twice a day and who are asked to determine whether odor is pre-
sent in the ambient air and how much dilution of this air is
required for the odor to disappear. The time periods represented
are indicated in Table 1.
5. Population Sampling.
Population sampling followed the same pattern in all three
communities, consisting essentially of systematic sampling of
households with random starts in the various subareas of each
community. In Eureka, the samples for the two surveys were chosen
so as to be mutually exclusive. In Anderson, a similar procedure
was followed for the postal and personal interview surveys.
6. Questionnaire - Annoyance and Health Reactions.
Several different questionnaires were used in the community study.
The major sections dealt with background variables which might
-------
affect responses to the questions, perception of the exposure sit-
uation, annoyance reactions, implications of the annoyance reactions
and health effects. The health effects section included selected
questions from the British questionnaire on respiratory symptoms
as well as questions concerning a list of symptoms. Questionnaires
used in each survey are appended, and the individual reports
describe their content in detail. They were administered by per-
sonal interview except for the postal survey conducted in Anderson.
The differences are summarized below as well as on Table 1.
a. Eureka
The questionnaire used in the first Eureka study included
questions on background variables and annoyance reactions
and was administered by interview. The only health ques-
tions referred to symptoms which the respondent attributed
to the odor and were asked only of those who had already
indicated that they were very much or moderately bothered by
the odor. The second Eureka study included the same questions
as the first concerning background variables and annoyance
reactions in order to provide data to evaluate changes during
the two-year period between the two studies. It also in-
cluded an expanded health section consisting of questions
concerning a list of symptoms as well as selected questions
concerning respiratory symptoms. The health questions were
asked of all respondents and were placed after the questions
on background variables and annoyance reactions in order to
-------
prevent biasing the annoyance reactions which were to be used
for comparison with the previous survey. However, this could
have resulted in bias in responses to the health questions.
In an attempt to prevent this, the health questions were
introduced simply as a health survey, not bearing any relation-
ship to the annoyance questionnaire, and the design of the
annoyance questionnaire itself was worded so as not to draw
attention to pulp mill odors as the area of primary interest.
b. Anderson
The Anderson questionnaire consisted only of the health
section of the second Eureka questionnaire to avoid interaction
with the annoyance section. To provide comparative information
on results obtained by personal interview and postal questionnaire,
two separate surveys were conducted. The questionnaires used in
both were designed to be as nearly alike as possible.
c. Carson
The Carson questionnaire was essentially the same as that used
in the' second Eureka survey with the modifications necessary to
relate it to general industrial odor in contrast to pulp mill
odor. These modifications consisted principally of the deletion
of questions which related specifically to pulp mill odor and
which permitted distinguishing responses in the Eureka survey
described as "probed" from those described as "semi-probed".
The questionnaire asked for information concerning background
variables, annoyance reactions and health.
-------
B. Community Panel Survey
The work of Richmond represents primarily a feasibility study of the
use of a panel of community members to report at specific times
concerning the presence of odor in the community, its intensity,
disagreeableness and possible source. Report forms were collected
and edited by local supervisors and submitted for tabulation. As
in the other studies, three areas of the community were chosen to
represent presumptive differences in exposure to the odor.
SECTION IV
IV. Results - Summary
A. Introduction
Differences in the type of exposure to odor, background characteristics
of respondents, and methodology in the various studies limit the
\
possibility for comparisons between the communities. Attention should
be concentrated on comparisons among the exposure areas within each
community, the relationships between the various methods employed,
and the patterns of response found within each community. Several
factors should be kept in mind.
1. Apparent differences over time in the two Eureka studies may
reflect differences in public response to a fixed problem as
well as differences in exposure to odor. Furthermore, tl\e
latter could be a function of differences in weather conditions
as well as of differences in emissions from the mills. A com-
parison of the two Eureka studies is presented in the attached
-------
report, "Trends in Community Annoyance Reactions to Odors
from Pulp Mills".
2. Differences in results from the two communites exposed to pulp
mill odors (Eureka and Anderson) may be affected by the following
factors as well as by differences in emissions:
a. Proximity of the study areas to the mills.
b. Climate.
c. Topography.
d. Sensitivity of the population samples to the odor and dependence
of the members of the community on the mills for economic sur-
vival .
e. Methodological differences which might have occurred, although
every effort was made to use comparable methods.
3. The comparisons of the results of postal survey with the results
of personal interview in the same community are the subject of the
attached report, "A Comparison of Postal Questionnaires and
Personal Interviews in Estimating the Frequencies with which
Symptoms are Reported in Residential Areas Exposed to Pulp Mill
Odors".
4. Emissions from the pulp mills in Eureka and Anderson represent
essentially point sources while emissions from the refineries and
other industries in Carson represent a diffuse source further com-
pounded by exposure to odors from automobile exhaust and general
L.A. smog.
9
-------
B. Population Surveys
1. Dynamic Olfactometry
Dynamic olfactometry appeared to work well in establishing
differences of exposure to odor in two of the three communities
in which it was used. The exception was Carson, which represents
a diffuse source of odor distributed among several industries in
contrast to the point sources which are represented by Eureka
and Anderson. In addition, Carson has a background odor from
general Los Angeles smog.
2. Annoyance Reactions
In general, the frequency with which odor was noticed and the
frequency and intensity with which respondents were bothered by
the odor follow the odor exposure gradients as defined by pre-
sumptive exposure and by dynamic olfactometry in each community.
3. Health Effects
In Eureka and Carson few significant differences in health effects
were found related to differences in exposure by area. In Anderson
a greater number of such differences occurred. Symptoms showing
significant area differences in at least one study include constipation
dizziness, nausea, or vomiting; headache; runny nose; cough; sinus
congestion; irritation of the nose; chest pain; and: .the M^C. symptoms
of persistent cough and/or phlegn and shortness of breath. Hence
the frequency of positive responses to the "dummy" question on
10
-------
constipation followed the same trend as the others. The greater
frequency with which many symptoms were reported by women indicates
the importance of adjusting for sex in the analysis.
Symptoms showing a relationship to the amount by which the respon-
dents were bothered by the odor regardless of the exposure area in
which they live include the following: headache; dizziness, nausea,
or vomiting; eye irritation; and burning or irritation of the nose.
4. Measurements of Particulates
Although some particulates showed significant statistical differences
in concentration by subareas within communities for same quarters
of the year, the magnitude and consistency of these differences do
not appear sufficient to have produced the health effects that
occurred. This is discussed more thoroughly and the data are
presented in the attached report, "Evaluation of Area Differences in
Exposure to Total Particulates, SO^, and NC>3 in Each Community
Studied".
11
-------
SECTION V
V. Evaluation and Recommendations
A. Evaluation
1. On the basis of our experience, we believe that odor monitoring
can be based on community panel responses with dynamic olfacto-
metry follow-up, at least in the case where a single source of
repetitive pollution is likely to be causing the odor* The eval-
uation of dynamic olfactometry in multiple source problems is not
complete.
2. We believe that there is suggestive evidence that health reactions
above and beyond the annoyance reactions to odor are occurring,
but the present studies have not been capable of elucidating these
reactions. Although evidence is not convincing, we suggest that
the most likely effects apart from annoyance due to community
odor exposure are changes in ventilatory function of the lung,
changes in secretions of the respiratory tract, changes in gastro-
intestinal function, the occurrence of gastrointestinal and res-
piratory symptoms, and headache.
3. Our studies have not dealt with the possible psychiatric or
psychosocial aspects of odor exposure, nor have they evaluated
the possible interference of odor exposure with defensive
of adaptive reactions.
12
-------
B. Recommendations
Further research in seeking to establish air quality criteria for
odorous materials, and control principles based on them, should
be focused in the following areas:
1. The development of prototypical dynamic olfactometry
and panel monitoring systems, combined with stack sampling or
community annoyance surveys should be carried out. The
application by air pollution districts of such systems should
be encouraged and they should be asked to participate in
further studies of such methods.
2. The better delineation of practical procedures for odor threshold
determination and its application to dynamic olfactometry should
be carried out by laboratory studies, and prototypical methods
for determining odor thresholds in community samples should be
developed as a parallel activity.
3. Studies of physiological reactions to experimental exposures to
odorants at levels, and of a type, common in community air
pollution should be carried out.
13
-------
Table 1
DATA OBTAINED IN COMMUNITY ODOR STUDIES
Measurement
Type of Odor
Pulp Mill
Other (including refineries)
Questionnaire
Month/Year
Background Data
Annoyance Reactions
Health Survey
Dynamic Olfactometry
Hi Vol Particulates*
Total Particulates
SO4
NO3
Organ ics
Ambient Gases
O.xidant
SO 9
NOX
N02
Total Reduced Sulfur
LOCATION
Eureka I
X
8/69
X
X
6-8/69
Eureka 11
X
8/71
X
X
X
9/71
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1
Anderson
Personal
Interview
X
11/70
X
X
8/70
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
Postal
Questionnaire
X
4-6/71
X
X
Carson
X
3-4/72
X
X
X
3/72
2-3
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-4
N.-nilx-i indicates quarters as follows:
' |ulv September, 1971
October-December. 1971
January March, 1972
4 April Jun- 1972
14
-------
SECTION VI-A
COMMUNITY REACTIONS TO ODORS FROM PULP MILLS
A PILOT STUDY IN EUREKA, CALIFORNIA
Erland Jonsson, Department of Sociology, University of Stockholm;
Margaret Deane; and George Sanders, Environmental Epidemiology Unit,
Bureau of Occupational Health and Environmental Epidemiology
and the Air and Industrial Hygiene Laboratory
California State Department of Public Health
Based on a report presented at
the Conference on the Measurement and Evaluation of Odor
in the Community in Relation to Odor Sources.
Stockholm, Sweden, June 1970
. .pported in part by a contract with National Air Pollution Control
Administration.
15
-------
INTRODUCTION
Odor in the air has been the basis for many general complaints about
air pollution.1 Indeed, for many persons air pollution is considered to
be mainly a problem of odor.2 In spite of this, the subject has had little
scientific attention. However, sev ral recent studies, made specifically
of community reactions to odor from industries have given information on
the presence of annoyance reactions and symptoms such as nausea and respi-
2
ratory complaints in the exposed populations. In several instances
this information has been of practical use in deciding whether action
should be taken to control the odor in a community. Althougn some of
these studies have compared community reactions in areas in which differ-
o / C
ent exposures to the sources of the odors were assumed, ' ' no studies
known to the authors have compared quantitative odor exposure data to
community reaction data.
The main purpose of the study reported here was to determine whether
it is possible to demonstrate the relationship between quantitative data
describing exposure and quantitative data describing community reactions.
Eureka, which was chosen as a suitable community for this study, is a
coastal city in northern California with a population of about 30,000,
located in an area in which the lumber industries play a major part in
the economy. Two pulp mills were recently built on a peninsula to the
we&t of the community. During part of the year, offshore winds carry
odorous materials from the pulp mills inland across Humboldt Say to resi-
dential and business areas of the city.
-------
METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS
Sampling. Three residential areas were chosen that were presumed to
have different exposures to the odors on the basis of location with re-
spect to the mills and prevailing offshore winds. Area I is situated 1-2
miles southeast of the mills and is expected to be more frequently exposed
to emissions from the pulp mills than the other two areas. Area II is lo-
cated 2-3 miles east of the mills and is assumed to be exposed to the odor
less frequently, while Area III, with the least exposure, is located ap-
proximately A miles east of the mills. The relative location of the pulp
mills and the three areas is shown in Figure 1.
Between 55 and 60 households were chosen in each of the areas by sys-
tematic random sampling. The proportions of total households represented
by the samples in each area were as follows: Area I, about one-fifth;
Area II, about one-third; and Area III, about one-half. The initial sam-
ples were designed to include approximately equal numbers of men and wom-
en. It was determined randomly whether a man or a woman (usually the head
of household or his wife) was to be interviewed in each household, but if
an adult of the designated sex was not living in the household, any adult
living there was interviewed. Because of the sample design and the popula-
tion structure of the areas surveyed, more women than men were represented
among the respondents.
The sample sizes, the distribution by sex, and the proportion of inter-
views successfully completed are shown in Table 1. The original samples were
augmented to replace unoccupied houses; the numbers described as ' 'sample''
include these additional households and represent the total numbers of houses
approached. The nonrespondents represent a total of six households in which
the respondent refused to be interviewed after at least two visits, and, in
17
-------
addition, two households in which it was not possible to contact the re-
spondent after repeated visits. Based on occupied households in the sample
an overall response rate of 95.2% was obtained.
Exposure Data. The exposure to odor in the three areas was estimated
by dynamic olfactometry. The measurements are based on the "odor dilu-
tion factor,'' which is the ratio of ambient air (air to which the com-
munity is exposed) to odorless air at which a trained observer just detects
malbdor. This is converted to the equivalent of parts per billion of a
specific odorant by multiplying by the odor threshold of each observer,
which is the ratio of a known dilution of a specific odorant to odorless
air at which the observer just detects the malodor.
The sensitivity of the method is a function of the observer's odor
threshold and the lowest dilution of odorant to odorless air that can be
measured on the olfactometer. In order to sample the ambient air ade-
quately, daily observations were obtained during three two-week periods
in June, July, and August. Two observers were exposed to the ambient
air at several sites in each of the three areas at half-hpurly intervals
during the day. The sampling sites, the method of sampling the ambient
air, and the instrumentation and technique of using the olfactometer are
described in detail elsewhere. The odor threshold of each observer was
measured twice a day.
Questionnaire and Interviewing. The questionnaire consists of five
major sections. (Appendix 1.) The.fir't section deals with such back-
ground data as age, occupation and family structure; the second section
with satisfaction with general conditions in the residential area and
the community; and the third section with air pollution and noise prob-
lems in the residential area. The questions of greatest interest in the
-------
study occur in the fourth section, which deals specifically with the ef-
fects of odors f'rom pulp mills. The fifth section of the questionnaire
consists of questions designed to measure attitudes toward pollution and
noi.se problems in general. The questionnaire was pretested in a town close
to Eureka which has occasional exposure to pulp mill odors. The average
time required for interviewing was between fifteen and twenty minutes.
The interviewing was carried out during the last two weeks of August,
1969. About two-thirds of the interviews were completed during the first
three days of the study, using six interviewers who continued to work
throughout the first week. One interviewer continued working during the
second week and did additional follow-up interviewing about a month later.
A training period of two to three days at the beginning of the field work
included detailed explanation and discussion of each item in the question-
naire and the method of recording responses, as well as practice in using
the questionnaire by means of role playing. The practice interviews were
recorded on tape and replayed for correction of errors and discussion of
interviewing technique. This was followed by actual practice field inter-
views in an area which was not to be included in the survey. The practice
interviews were edited for omissions, inconsistencies, and errors in re-
cording responses, and any problems were discussed with the interviewers.
Similar editing was done during the survey itself so that errors could be
corrected while the field work was still in progress and interviewer per-
formance could be evaluated and modified if necessary.
The interview was introduced to the respondents as part of a survey
on how people feel about the community in which they live. In order to
mask the principal aim of the study, no mention was made of health or of
odor from the pulp mills. This has been found in previous studies to be
important in obtaining unbiased results.
19
-------
RESULTS OF ANNOYANCE SURVEY
The results presented here fall into four main groups:
1 . Perception of the exposure situation.
2. Annoyance reactions.
3. Implications of the annoyance reactions.
4. Relevance of the background variables to annoyance reactions.
Detailed descriptions of the responses tabulated on each table .are
given in Appendix 2.
1. Perception of the Exposure Situation
The frequencies with which the odor is noticed in the three areas are
shown in Table 2. These are tabulated from responses to questions asking
whether the respondent has noticed the odor from pulp mills during the last
three months, and, if so, how often it was noticed. Obvious differences
occur between the three areas with respect to how often the respondents
notice the pulp mill odors. In Area I, 23% of the respondents said that
they noticed the odors every day. In Area II, the corresponding frequency
was 13%. In the third area no respondents reported that they noticed the
odor daily. The odor was noticed at least once a week (including ''every
day") by about 81% of the respondents in Area I, about 55% in Area II,
and 12% in Area III. These differences are statistically significant at
2
the 5% level using a X test for trend. Some persons said they did not
notice the odor at all; this, response was given by 6%. in Area I, 20% in
Area II, and 35% in Area III.
2. Annoyance Reactions
The data presented in'Table 3 are tabulated from a question allowing
six alternative responses.' indicating how much the odor has bothered the
respondent. Half of the respondents in Area I were very much or moder-
ately bothered. This response was also given by 31% .in Area II, and 18%
20
-------
in Area III. The response ''not noticed or not bothered at all'' was
given by 27% in Area I, 45% in Area II, and 65% in Area III. These dif-
9
ferences also resulted in a significant X for trend.
Respondents who were bothered were also asked how often they were
bothered. These data are presented in Table 4. In Area I, 9 out of 26
who were very much or moderately bothered were bothered at least several
times a week; in Area II, 5 out of 17 gave these responses; but in Area III,
none of the 9 respondents in this group said they were bothered as often
as several times a week.
People who reported being very much or moderately bothered were asked
whether they thought the situation with regard to pulp mill odor was better
or worse compared with the previous summer. As shown in Table 5, about
half of the individuals who were very much or moderately bothered thought
that no change had occurred since last summer, or answered ''don't know.''
Of the 23 respondents who thought there had been a change, 18 thought that
conditions were better; 13 of these thought it was because there was actu-
ally less odor, while 5 thought it was because they had grown used to it.
Five persons thought the odor situation was worse this summer than last
summer.
3. Implications of the Annoyance Reactions
The implications of the annoyance reactions were studied by examining
the relationship between questions about symptoms and annoyance reactions,
and also by measuring the degree of spontaneity with which the odor was
mentioned and how likely the respondent was to try to change his exposure
to the odor. Among the 31 respondents who were very much bothered, only
1 person said that he did not get any of the symptoms on the list when he
was bothered by the odor. Somewhat more than half of the respondents who
were moderately bothered were without such symptoms.
21
-------
About 25% of all respondents said they had experienced one or more
symptoms in connection with pulp mill odors. Nausea and sinus congestion
were reported by about 15% each, and eye irritation and headache by about
10% each. Other respiratory symptoms such as cough and shortness of breath
and nasal symptoms such as nose irritation and runny nose were reported by
5-10% each. These data are summarized in Table 6.
Respondents were given an opportunity to mention the pulp mill odor
problem in response to questions that did not deal specifically with air
pollution (spontaneously); in response to questions about odor from indus-
tries but with no specific mention made of pulp mills (semi-probed mention
of pulp mill odor); or in answer to specific questions about pulp mill
odor (probed mention of pulp mill odor), as shown in Table 7. These cate-
gories are considered to indicate the saliency of the problem to the re-
spondent. In Area I, about 50% spontaneously mentioned the problem of
odor from pulp mills; in Area II, about 20%; and in Area III, only 4%
(2 individuals). Of 40 individuals who mentioned odor spontaneously,
29 were very much ot moderately bothered. Two-thirds of these individ-
uals lived in Area I. Only 7 persons who mentioned odor from the pulp
mills did not mention it until they were specifically asked about it,
and only 1 of these said he was very much or moderately bothered by the
odor.
The respondents were asked whether they had ever thought of request-
ing or had actually requested some authority or agency to take action
concerning the pulp mill odor. In addition, positive responses to an
open-ended question as to whether they had felt like moving away from
the community were coded according to the reason given. Individuals
who gave pulp mill odors as the reason are included with those who had
22
-------
"thought of taking action" in Table 8. The table shows that action was
taken by only one person who was not very much or moderately bothered by
the odor, and that of those who were very much or moderately bothered, re-
spondents in Area I were more likely to take action than those in the other
areas. The ''action'' dimension is regarded here as a measure of the re-
spondent's tolerance toward the problem.
4. Relevance of the Background Variables to Annoyance Reactions
A number of questions were included in the interview primarily to pro-
vide information on variables which might differ among the three areas and
at the same time be related to annoyance reactions. To test the possible
effect of these variables, two-by-two tables were constructed comparing
responses on each of the variables with the degree to which the respondent
was bothered by pulp mill odors, and yr tests with one degree of freedom
were carried out. Detailed descriptions of the variables can be found by
referring to the questionnaire and Appendix 2. As can be seen in Table 9,
significant X^'s (starred) were obtained for seven of the seventeen back-
ground variables. All but age, household structure, and housing index
could obviously be a result of, as well as a causative factor in, annoyance.
i
In order to determine whether the relationship between annoyance re-
actions and these background variables might account for the area dif-
ferences, the proportions very much or moderately annoyed in each area
were compared within each of the two strata of each background variable.
(See Table 10.)
Since a larger proportion of respondents was very much or moderately
bothered in the under 50 age group than in the 50 or over age group, the
larger proportion of young adults living in Area I than in Area II could
account for some of the area differences. However, as shown in Table 10,
23
-------
the area gradient in percent very much or moderately bothered occurs with-
in the younger age group. A similar result is seen for household structure.
A larger proportion of respondents in households with children is very much
or moderately bothered by the odor. However, the area gradient is maintained
within this stratum.
RESULTS OF EXPOSURE MEASUREMENTS
Complete results of the exposure measurements made by dynamic o'lfactometry
are presented in a separate report.6 The discussion here is limited to a
summary of the most important results relevant to evaluation of the annoy-
ance reactions. Comparison of results for the three areas shows that Area I
has the greatest exposure to odor, Area III has the least exposure, and
Area II has an intermediate exposure, regardless of which of three indices
of exposure is used. This is demonstrated in Tables 11, 12, and 13 which
show, respectively, the percent of total observations which indicated de-
tection of odor, the diurnal malodor concentration at 92nd percentile and
the maximum malodor concentration detected. These results agree with the
presumed exposure of the areas to pulp mill odor as well as with the an-
noyance reactions of the residents of each area.
DISCUSSION
It has been shown in studies of community reactions to air pollution
and noise that if the respondents are aware of the real purpose of the
survey they may tend to exaggerate annoyance reactions in an attempt to
force community action to reduce the environmental irritant.7 To avoid
s
this, the purpose of the study was masked, the field work was accomplished
in as short a time as possible to reduce the possibility of discussion of
the study among respondents, and no publicity was given to the study
through mass media.
-------
The method of measuring exposure does not exclude the possibility of
an expectation effect. The members of the odor panel knew in which study
area they were making each measurement, and, in some cases, were able to
smell the odor before they were exposed to the sample of ambient air being
passed through the instrument panel. It is improbable that such an effect
was great enough to invalidate the measurements.
The population samples used for the study are not representative of
the general population. Thus, statistically valid community-wide estima-
tions of annoyance reactions cannot be made from the results reported here.
However, the results do strongly suggest that many people, especially in
Area I, are very concerned about the odor problem and that some of them
attribute to the odor symptoms such as nausea, sinus congestion, and eye
irritation, which may or may not be largely psychosomatic.
Neither the method used for exposure measurements nor the method used
for annoyance reactions is at present as precise as one would like. In
spite of this, and in spite of the fact that only three areas were used
for the study, the results show clearly that there is an association
between the exposure data and the reaction data.
An analysis of the implications of the annoyance reactions suggests
that it should be possible to construct a reaction index for further
studies by using, besides the annoyance questions, information about
presence of symptoms, how spontaneously the respondent mentions the en-
vironmental irritant, and how willing the respondent is to take action
to force a change.
Of the background variables, those measuring attitude appeared to be
of the greatest relevance in determining the degree of annoyance reaction.
These included general attitude toward odor, attitude toward pulp mills,
25
-------
estimation of the odor problem in Eureka, action to change other conditions,
attitude toward authorities, and concern about other community problems.
These relationships may be an indication that the attitudes resulted partly
from the reactions to ,the exposure rather than that they were a determining
factor. However, it should be noticed that about 60% of the respondents
who were very much or moderately bothered said that they thought the pulp
mills were good for Eureka.
)
The results of this study indicate that it should be possible to formu-
late a quantitative relationship between measurements of exposure to pulp
mill odors and community reactions. Further refinement in methods and a
larger number of observations representing a broader span of exposures are
needed.
26
-------
Table 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE POPULATION SAMPLES
Eureka, 1969
RESPONSE
CATEGORY
Sample Size
Respondents
Nonrespondents
Refusals
Not reached
Dwelling Unit
Unoccupied
I
Total
59
52
3
1
2
4
Male
26
22
1
0
1
3
Female
33
30
2
1
1
1
II
Total
59
55
4
4
0
0
Male
24
23
1
1
0
0
Female
35
32
3
3
0
0
III
Total
56
51
1
1
0
4
Male
28
25
1
1
0
2
Female
28
26
0
0
0
2
27
-------
Table 2
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH PULP MILL ODOR NOTICED
Eureka, 1969
HOW OFTEN NOTICED
Total
Every day
At least once a week
At least once a month
Less often or don't know
Not noticed at all
I
52
12
30
5
2
3
II
55
7
23
7
. 7
11
III
51
0
6
15
12
18
Testing "every day" and "at least once a week" against
other categories:
X for trend
X for departure from trend
X total
X' d.f.
49.0** 1
0.6 1
49.6** 2
**
Significant at the 1% level.
28
-------
Table 3
EXTENT TO WHICH BOTHERED BY PULP MILL ODOR
Eureka, 1969
AMOUNT BOTHERED
Total
Odor noticed
Very much bothered
Moderately bothered
A little bothered
Not at all bothered
or don't know
Odor not noticed or don't know
I
52
49
15
11
12
11
3
II
55
44
13
4
13
14
11
III
51
33
3
6
9
15
18
Testing ''very much" and ''moderately'' bothered against
other.
X for trend
X2 for departure from trend
X2 total
12.2
0.2
12.4
**
**
d.f,
1
1
2
**
Significant at the 1% level.
29
-------
Table 4
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH BOTHERED BY PULP MILL ODOR
Eureka, 1969
HOW OFTEN BOTHERED
Total
Very much or moderately bothered
Often
Occasionally
Seldom
Only a little, or not bothered
at all
I
52
26
9
16
1
26
II
55
17
5
11
1
38
III
51
9
0
2
7
42
30
-------
Table 5
ESTIMATION OF CHANGE IN PULP MILL ODOR SINCE PREVIOUS SUMMER
Eureka, 1969
ESTIMATION OF CHANGE
Total
Very much or moderately bothered
No change or don't know
Better - less odor
- used to it
Worse - more odor
- more sensitive
Only a little or not bothered
at all, odor not noticed, or
don't know
I
52
26
11
9
4
2
0
26
II
55
17
12
2
0
2
1
38
III
51
9
6
2
1
0
0
42
Includes those who thought there was some change but did
not know whether it was due to change in odor or in their
sensitivity to it.
31
-------
Table 6
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH SYMPTOMS WERE REPORTED
WHEN BOTHERED BY PULP MILL ODOR
Eureka, 1969
NAUSEA 16%
SINUS CONGESTION 15%
HEADACHE 12%
EYE IRRITATION 10%
COUGH
NERVOUSNESS 5-9%
each
NOSE IRRITATION
' RUNNY NOSE
SHORTNESS OF BREATH
FATIGUE
INSOMNIA
CHEST PAIN 1 - 4%
each
PALPITATION-
VOMITING
SWEATING
32
-------
Table 7
SPONTANEITY OF MENTION OF PULP MILL ODOR BY EXTENT TO WHICH BOTHERED
MENTION OF
PULP MILL ODOR
Total
Spontaneous mention
of pulp mill odor
Semi-probed mention
of pulp mill odor
Probed ment ion
of pulp mill odor
No mention
of pulp mill odor
AREA I
Very Much
or
Moderately
Bothered
26
20
6
0
0
Little
or Not
at All
Bothered
26
7
16
1
2
AREA II
Very Much
or
Moderately
Bothered
17
8
9
0
0
Little
or Not
at All
Bothered
38
3
21
3
11
AREA III
Very Much
or
Moderately
Bothered
9
1
7
1
0
Little
or Not
at All
Bothered
42
1
21
2
18
UJ
U)
-------
Table 8
ACTION BY EXTENT TO WHICH BOTHERED BY PULP MILL ODOR
ACTION
Total
Took action
Thought of taking
action
No action
AREA I
Very Much
or
Moderately
Bothered
26
16
1
9
Little
or Not
at All
Bothered
26
1
0
25
AREA II
Very Much
or
Moderately
Bothered
17
5
1
11
Little
or Not
at All
Bothered
38
0
0
38
AREA III
Very Much
or
Moderately
Bothered
9
3
1
5
Little
or Not
at All
Bothered
42
0
0
42
-------
Table 9
X2 TESTS OF BACKGROUND VARIABLES
(One degree of freedom)
Eureka, 1969
VARIABLE
Sex
Male
Female
Age
< 50 years
> 50 years
Marital status
Married
Other
Occupation
White collar
Other (blue collar and professional)
Job associated with mills
(respondent or spouse)
Yes
No
General attitude toward odor
Annoyed
Not annoyed
Attitude toward pulp mills
Good
Bad
General attitude toward noise
Annoyed
Not annoyed
Estimation of odor problem in Eureka
Greater than other cities its size
Other
Estimation of noise problem in Eureko
Less than other cities its size
Other
Attitude of authorities toward air pollution
Too little concern
Other
VERY MUCH/
MODERATELY
BOTHERED
18
34
41
11
44
8
16
36
3
49
45
7
32
20
20
32
27
25
21
31
35
17
OTHER
51
55
53
53
83
23
44
62
5
101
33
73
97
9
36
70
11
95
35
71
25
81
X2
2.06
10.88**
0.53
1.28
0.01
40.66**
18.96**
0.14
30.73**
0.54
26.49**
**
Significant at the 1% level.
35
-------
Table 9 (continued)
VARIABLE
Household structure
Adults only
Children
Satisfaction with community
Things other than pulp mill
odor don't like
Other
Housing index
1-2
3-5
Concern about other community problems
At least one other problem rated
serious /somewhat serious
Other
Exposure (hours /day)
Six hours or less
Other
How long in area
Same residential area before mills
Other
VERY MUCH/
MODERATELY
BOTHERED
19
33
20
32
19
33
14
38
29
23
36
16
OTHER
62
44
43
63
64
42
21
85
58
48
74
32
x2
5.88*
0.01
7.02**
0.65
0.00
0.01
* Significant at the 5% level.
** Significant at the 1% level.
36
-------
PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS VERY MUCH OR MODERATELY BOTHERED IN EACH AREA
WITHIN STRATA OF VARIABLES SHOWING SIGNIFICANT X2 VALUES
Eureka, 1969
Age
< 50 years
> 50 years
General attitude toward
odor
Annoyed
Not Annoyed
Attitude toward pulp mills
G.-.d
Bad
Attitude of authorities
toward air pollution
Too little concern
Other
Estimation of odor problem
Greater than other cities
Other
Household structure
Adults only
Children
I
Number
of
Respondents
37
15
27
25
42
10
23
29
15
37
18
34
Percent
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
64.9
13.3
74.1
24.0
42.9
80.0
78.3
27.6
80.0
37.8
16.7
67.6
II
Number
of
Respondents
28
27
29
26
42
13
21
34
13
42
36
19
Percent
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
39.3
22.2
58.6
0.0
16.7
76.9
61.9
11.8
84.6
14.3
30.6
31.6
III
Number
of
Respondents
29
22
22
29
45
6
16
35
10
41
25
26
Percent
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
20.7
13.6
36.4
3.4
15.6
33.3
25.0
14.3
40.0
12.2
20.0
15.4
-------
Table 11
PERCENT MEASURABLE ODOR DETECTIONS
(Odor Frequency)
Eureka, 1969
TIME OF DAY
Total 0800-1630
0800-1130
1200-1630
AREA I
Total Number
of
Observations
564
256
308
Percent of
Observations
With Odor
37.4
23.4
49.0
AREA II
Total Number
of
Observations
846
384
462
Percent of
Observations
With Odor
14.1
13.5
14.5
AREA III
Total Number
of
Observations
1128
512
616
Percent of
Observations
With Odor
5.9
3.5
8.0
U!
CO
-------
Table 12
DIURNAL MALODOR CONCENTRATION AT 95th PERCENTILE
BY AREA AND TIME
(as ppb CH3SH)
Eureka, 1969.
TIM& GF'-fcAY'
0800
0830
0900
0930
1000
1030
1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
1400
1430
1500
1530
1600
,1630
AREA. I>
5.9
5.9
3*1
6.5
7.6
3.6
15.1
4.1
4.1
16.9
5.0
18.0
12.3
21.2
17.1
9.5
9.7
30 . 1 ,
AREA II.
7.2
1.0
16.9
1.9
N.D.
17.6
3.9
10.4
8.4
2.4
2.8
21 .1
2.6
N.D.
9.0
N.D.
N.D.
5.7
AREA, 1 1* . :
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
"" 'J
2.(j
3.8
1.1
2.6
2.6
N.D,
N.D.
8.0
N.D.
N.D.
7.3
N.D.
N.D. " none detected, essentially Q.
39
-------
Table 13
MAXIMUM MALODOR CONCENTRATION DETECTED4
SY AREA AND TIME
(as ppb CH3SH)
Eureka, 1969
SAMPLING INTERVAL
BEGUN AT
0800
0830
0900
0930
1000
1030
1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
1400
1430
1500
1530
1600
1630
ARIA I
8.9
12.9
11.4
52.5
59.2
6.4
24.7
5.6
10.1
38.6
33.3
19.7
28.1
249.6
47.1
16.6
26.0
239.4
AREA II
4.4
2.4
28.2
3.8
N.D.
38.9
5.5
16.5
31.2
2.9
5.0
170.7
23.9
0.9
12.6
1.2
N.D.
16.1
AREA III
N.D.
5.1
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
3.2
2.4
5.6
1.4
6.0
7.1
1.4
N.D.
21.9
1.6
N.D.
23.1
N.D.
In each case the concentration ranged from none detected to
the maximum shown.
N.D. none detected which means less than 2 x minimum O.T. of the
the observer - essentially 0.
40
-------
Figure
EUREKA, CALIFORNIA
-------
REFERENCES
1. National Goals in Air Pollution Research, US Surgeon General's Ad Hoc
Task Group on Air Pollution Research Goals (Public Health Service Pub-
lication No. 804), US Dept HEW (August) 1960, Washington, D.C.
2. Medalia, N.Z.: Community Perception of Air Quality: An Opinion Survey
in Clarkston, Washington, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
(Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-10), US Dept HEW (June)
1965, Cincinnati, Ohio.
3. Friberg, L.; Jonsson, E.; and Cederlof, R. : Studier over Sanitara
Olagenheter av Rokgaser frSn en Sulfatcellulosafabrik (I), Nordisk
Hygienisk Tidskrift 41:41-50, 1960.
4. Cederlof, R. ; Friberg, L.; Jonsson, E. ; Kaij , L. ; and Lindvall, T.:
Studies of Annoyance Connected with Offensive Smell from a Sulphate
Cellulose Factory, Nordisk Hygienisk Tidskrift 45:39-48, 1964.
5. Smith, W.S.; Schueneman, J.J.; and Zeidberg, L.D.: Public Reaction to
Air Pollution in Nashville, Tennessee, APCA J 14:418-423 (October) 1964.
6. Sanders, G.R. ; Umbraco, R.A.; Twiss, S»; and Mueller, P.K.: The
Measurement of Malodor in a Community by Dynamic Olfactometry, Air
and Industrial Hygiene Report No. 86, California State Department of
Public Health, Berkeley, 1970.
7. Jonsson, E.: Om Olika Metoder for Studier av Yttre Miljofaktorers
Storande Effekt, Nordisk Psykologi 14:270-288, 1962.
-------
APPENDIX 1
See Section VII - Questionnaires
-------
EUREKA PULP MILL STUDY
APPENDIX 2
Definitions of Analytic and Background Variables
Table 2
Positive responses to two questions were used to measure the frequency
with which pulp mill odor was noticed by the respondent:
A. "Have you noticed odors from industries here at home during
the last three months? What industries?" (Pulp mills were'
not specifically mentioned to the respdndent. See page 10
of the questionnaire.)
B. "Some people here in Eureka have been complaining about odors
from the pulp mills. Here in your house have you noticed the
odors during the last three months?'* (This question was asked
only of respondents who had not already mentioned pulp mill to
the question concerning odors from industry. See page 12 of
the questionnaire.)
For each question, respondents who gave a positive response we're asked:
C. "How often? Is it every day, at least once a week, at least
once a month, or less often?" The "not noticed at all"
category included individuals who did not know whether they
had noticed the pulp mill odor. (See pages 10 and 12 of the
questionnaire.)
Table 3
Individuals who had given positive answers to either questions A or B
(above) were classified according to the extent bothered by pulp mill odor
according to responses to the following question:
44
-------
D. "Would you say it has bothered you only a little, moderately,
very much, not at all?" (See pages 10 and 12 of the question-
naire. )
Table 4
Respondents who had indicated on question D that they were very much or
moderately bothered were tabulated by "frequency with which bothered"
on the basis of answers to question C (above) and an additional question:
E. "How often has it bothered you? Is it almost every time,
about half the time, less often?"
The definitions of "frequency with which bothered" in terms of responses
to questions C and E are shown below:
How Often Noticed
(Question C)
Every day
At least once
a week
At least once
a month
Less often or
don't know
How Often Bothered (Question E)
Almost every time
or about half the time
Often
Occasionally
Seldom
Seldom
Less often
or don't know
Occasionally
Seldom
Seldom
Seldom
Table 5
Respondents who were very much or moderately bothered, as measured by
responses to question D, were categorized by responses to the following
three questions:
F. "You said the odors have bothered you. Do you think it's
better, worse, or the same this summer as last summer?"
(See page 13 of the questionnaire.)
45
-------
If "better", question G was asked, if "worse",
question H was asked.
G. "Do you think it's because there is less odor or because you
have become used to it?" (See page 14 of the questionnaire.)
H. "Do you think it's because there is more odor or because you
are more sensitive to it?" (See page 14 of the questionnaire.)
Table 6
Respondents who had indicated that they were bothered by pulp mill
odors moderately or very much, were asked if they had any symptoms listed
on page 13 of the questionnaire.
Table 7
Respondents were tabulated according to whether they mentioned the
pulp mill odor "spontaneously," gave a "semi-probed" response, or
gave a "probed" response, defined as follows:
* 'Spontaneous mention of pulp mill odors" was defined as mention of
pulp mill odors in response to the following questions:
I. "What are some of the things you don't like about living here?"
J. ' 'Have you ever felt like moving away from this residential
area?" If yes, "when you have felt like moving away, what
has the reason been?"
K. "If you could find a similar apartment (house) which would
not be more expensive in another residential area, would you
like to move there?" If yes, "why would you like to do
this?"
L. "Is there anything here in the community that you think is
harmful for you or your family?" If yes, "what is this?"
-------
These questions occur early in the questionnaire before either pulp mill
odors or odors from other industry have been mentioned by the interviewer.
(See pages 4-6 of the questionnaire.)
"Semi-probed mention of pulp mill odors'' was defined as mention of
pulp mill odors in response to the following question if the respondent
had not already mentioned odor ''spontaneously'':
M. ''Have you noticed odors from industries here at home during
the last three months?" If yes, "what industries?''
This question occurred before the interviewer had specifically mentioned
pulp mill odors. (See page 10 of the questionnaire.) Responses mention-
ing pulp mill odor were called " semi-probed" only if the respondent had
not previously mentioned pulp mill odors.
*'Probed mention of pulp mill odors" was defined as a positive re-
sponse to the following question, which was asked only if respondent had
not already given a ''probed" or ''semi-probed" pulp mill response:
N. ''Some people here in Eureka have been complaining about odors
from the pulp mills. Here in your house have you noticed the
odors during the last three months?" (See page 12 of the
questionnaire.)
''No mention of pulp mill odors'* was defined as a negative response
to question N with no previous mention of pulp mill odors.
Table 8
Data shown on Table 8 were tabulated from positive responses with
mention of pulp mill odor to the following questions:
0. ''Have you ever thought of requesting, or have you actually
requested some authority or agency to take action concerning
any of these problems, e.g., by writing or phoning an official,
47
-------
signing a petition, or attending a meeting?» If so* "what
problem was it?" (See page 8 of the questionnaire.)
P. "Have you ever felt like moving away from this residential
area?" If yes, "when you have felt like moving away, what
has the reason been?" (See page 5 of the questionnaire.)
Table 9
Background Variables
Attitude toward authorities was based on question 60, page 15 of the
questionnaire.
Satisfaction with community was based on questions 5, 7, and 8,
pages 4 and 5 of the questionnaire. Individuals who indicated
that there were things other than pulp mill odor that they did
not like about the residential area, were tested against all others.
Those who didn't know whether to rate the community good, fair, or
poor were included in the latter category.
Housing index was derived from the number of bedrooms in the household
and the number of married couples, single adults and children.
Households coded 1-2 as indicated below were tested against those
coded 3-5.
Copies of the questionnaire are available from the authors.
-------
Married
couples +
single
individuals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Bedrooms
1 23456789
10
3
2
3
4
c
J
2
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
2
3
1
2
3 2
3 2
3 2
3
-------
SECTION VI-B
HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO COMMUNITY
ODORS FROM PULP MILLS
EUREKA, 1971
Preceding page blank
-------
INTRODUCTION
Community odors associated with pulp mill operation have been the basis
for spontaneous complaints to authorities.1 Furthermore, studies designed
especially to measure annoyance reactions have confirmed that residents
of areas with greater exposure to the odors tend to notice the odor more
frequently and to be bothered by it both more frequently and to a greater
extent than residents with less exposure.^ In addition, some studies
have shown that people exposed to the odor attribute medical symptoms to
it.3,6
The present report is based on a study of the health and annoyance re-
actions to pulp mill odor carried out in 1971 in Eureka, a coastal city
in northern California with a population of about 30,000 located in an
area in which the lumber industries play a major part in the economy.
During part of the year, offshore winds carry odorous materials across
Humboldt Bay from the pulp mills to residential and business areas of
the city. The annoyance reactions have been described in detail else-
where.7 This report consists largely of a comparison of the frequency
with which symptoms are reported in three areas representing high,
moderate and low exposure to pulp mill odor.
52
-------
METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS
Sampling;
Three residential areas were chosen that were presumed to have
different exposures to the pulp mill odors on the basis of
location with respect to the mills and prevailing offshore winds.
Area I is situated 1-2 miles southeast of the mills and is ex-
pected to be more frequently exposed to emissions from the pulp
mills than the other two areas. Area II is located 2-3 miles east
of the mills and is assumed to be exposed to the odor less fre-
quently; while Area III, with the least exposure, is located
approximately 4 miles east of the mills. The relative location
of the pulp mills and the three areas is shown in Figure I.
With the exception of Area III these areas are the same used in a
study of annoyance reactions conducted in Eureka in 1969. The
households sampled in 1969 were omitted from the sampling frames
for Areas I and II. Area III for the current study was located
adjacent to the corresponding area for the 1969 study since too
few unsampled households remained in the old Area III.
About 50 households were chosen in each of the areas by systematic
sampling with a random start. The original samples were augmented
to replace unoccupied households by randomly selecting replace-
ments between the sample households on each side of the vacant
53
-------
households. The sample sizes, the distribution of respondents by
sex, and the proportion of interviews successfully completed are
shown in Table 1, in which the numbers described as "samples"
represent the total number of households approached, including
both the vacant households and their replacements. It was deter-
mined randomly whether a man or woman (usually the head of
household or spouse) was to be interviewed in each household, but
if an adult of the designated sex was not living in the household,
any adult living there was interviewed.
Exposure Data:
The exposure to odor in the three areas was estimated by dynamic
olfactometry. The measurements are based on the "odor dilution
factor" which is the ratio of ambient air (air to which the com-
munity is exposed) to odorless air at which the observer just
detects odor. This is converted to the equivalent of parts per
billion of a specific odorant by multiplying by the odor threshold
of each observer, which is the ratio of a known dilution of a
specific odorant to odorless air at which the observer just
detects the odor.
The sensitivity of the method is a function of the observer's odor
threshold and the lowest dilution of odorant to odorless air that
can be measured on the olfactometer. Daily measurements were
-------
obtained during a single two week period in September. In addi-
tion, measurements taken during the 1969 study of annoyance
reactions in the same areas were available. The latter consisted
of daily measurements taken during three two-week periods in June,
July, and August. In both years, two observers were exposed to
the ambient air at several sites in each of the three areas at
half hour intervals during the day. The odor thresholds of each
observer was measured twice a day. The method of sampling the
ambient air and the instrumentation and technique of using the
olfactometer are described in detail elsewhere.^"^
Questionnaire and Interviewing
The questionnaire consisted of six major sections. The first
section deals with such background data as age, occupation and
and family structure; the second section with satisfaction with
general conditions in the residential area in the community; and
the third section with attitudes toward air pollution and noise
problems in the residential area. The fourth section deals
specifically with the annoyance effects of odors from pulp mills,
and the fifth section consists of questions designed to measure
attitudes toward pollution and noise problems in general. This
report deals primarily with responses to the remaining section of
the questionnaire, which deals with medical symptoms. It includes
the basic questions from the British MRC questionnaire on cough,
phlegm, shortness of breath, and chest illness. In addition, the
55
-------
respondents were asked whether they had been sick, been to a
doctor or been a patient in a hospital within the last two weeks.
A list of symptoms was then read to the respondent and he or she
was asked whether each one was experienced frequently, occasionally
or hardly ever. The respondent's perception of his own health
was also evaluated in terms of excellent, good, fair or poor.
An interviewer training period of two to three days at the
beginning of the field work included detailed explanation and
discussion of each item in the questionnaire and the method of
recording responses as well as practice in using the questionnaire
by means of role playing. The practice interviews were recorded
on tape and replayed for correction of errors and discussion of
interviewing technique. This was followed by actual practice field
interviews which were edited for omissions, inconsistencies, and
errors in recording responses. Similar editing was done during the
survey itself so that errors could be corrected while the field
work was still in progress and interviewer performance could be
evaluated and modified if necessary.
The interviewing was carried out in August following training of
interviewers described in detail elsewhere.6'7 The interview was
introduced to the respondent as part of a survey on how people
feel about the community in which they live as well as a health
survey. In order to mask the principal aim of the study, no
mention was made of odor from the pulp mills. This has been
56
-------
found in previous studies to be important in obtaining unbiased
results. In addition, the field work was completed as quickly
as possible to reduce the possibility of the results being af-
fected by discussion of the survey within the community.
In the following discussion, the three areas are designated Area I,
Area II, and Area III, representing, respectively, the areas of
high, moderate and low exposure to the odor.
RESULTS OF ANNOYANCE SURVEY
The results of the annoyance survey are presented in abbreviated
form (Table 2) since their primary value in this report is to confirm that
the area differences in exposure demonstrated in the 1969 survey of
annoyance reaction to pulp mill odor were still valid in 1971. As in
1969, Area I still appears to have the greatest exposure to the odor as
demonstrated by the frequency with which odor is noticed and the extent.
to which the respondent is bothered by it. Area III continues to experi-
ence the least exposure in most categories representing frequency with
which odor is noticed, but the distinction between Areas II and III is
not shown in the percents of individuals very much or moderately bothered
by the odor when these are based only on the numbers of respondents who
reported noticing the odor. These results could be a reflection of
different exposure of the new Area III as defined in 1971 compared to
Area III as originally defined in the 1969 survey, or it could represent
atypical weather conditions which were observed to occur during the 1971
57
-------
survey. A detailed comparison of the 1969 and 1971 annoyance survey
results is presented in a separate report.7
RESULTS OF HEALTH SURVEY
The health questionnaire is divided into two parts. One part
consists of questions on cough, phlegm, and shortness of breath from the
British Medical Research Councel's (MRC) standardized questionnaire on
respiratory symptoms.^1 The second consists of a list of symptoms which
respondents were asked to characterize as being experienced "frequently''
'occasionally'', or "hardly ever". In addition, the respondents were
asked whether they had been sick, visited to a doctor, or been in a
hospital as a patient within the two weeks preceding the interview.
The results of the tests for area trends for the list of symptoms are
summarized in Tables 3 through 5. There were obvious differences by sex
in the proportions of respondents reporting the various symptoms fre-
quently or occasionally (Table 4). For all areas combined, without exception
a higher proportion of women than men reported experiencing each symptom
although only nervousness and headache show statistically significant sex
differences. Nervousness also showed significant sex differences within
each area, headache did not. Since the proportion of women in each area
varied inversely to the exposure of the area to pulp mill odors, this
sex difference would be unlikely to explain the relationship observed between
exposure and the frequency with which symptoms are reported. However, since
the sex difference could compensate for real area differences in symptoms, which
might then remain undetected, and since women do not report higher frequencies
58
-------
of symptoms in all areas, the following analysis is carried out separately by
sex where the numbers of observations permit. The sex difference was not as
consistent for the subgroup reporting symptoms frequently, possibly a
reflection of the relatively small numerators (not shown in tables).
o
X tests to detect significant trends by area were carried out
for all respondents (Table 3), for men and women separately (Table 4), and
for those very much or moderately bothered by the odor as well as those
only a little or not at all bothered (Table 5). These were done separately
for those who reported symptoms frequently (not shown by sex or amount
bothered on tables), and for a combined group representing those who re-
ported symptoms frequently or occasionally. None were significant. How-
ever, since the estimation of exposure made from dynamic olfactometry, as
well as some of the annoyance reactions, suggested that a more appropriate
area gradient might be represented by using Area II to represent the least
exposure, and Area III to represent moderate exposure, tests were also
made for this trend. Significant area differences corresponding to
differences in exposure to odor were found for the percent reporting con-
stipation frequently or occasionally among women (Table 4) as well as
among respondents of both sexes who were a little or not at all bothered
by the pulp mill odor (Table 5).
Similar tests for area trends were made for responses to the MRC
questions (Table 6). Only phlegm Grade 1 or greater gave significant
results, and these occurred only among women and for both sequences of
areas (Areas I, II, or III and Areas I, III, II). However, this could
be related to the higher percent of smokers among women in Area I compared
with Areas II and III. No significant trends for the MRC symptoms were
found when tested separately within each "amount bothered by the odor"
category (not shown on table). Although the interviewers were trained
59
-------
in the use of the MRC questions using standardized methods, slightly
modified probing rules were used to simplify training. Therefore,
the prevalence of symptoms shown in Tables 6 and 8 should not be compared
directly with the results of other surveys using the standardized ques-
tions. In addition, although the MRC questions preceded the questions
concerning the frequency of other symptoms, they followed the annoyance
section of the questionnaire, and this could also have affected the results.
The significant trends reported above represent only those in the
direction hypothesized from the exposure data, that is, those showing a
positive relationship between symptoms and exposure to odor. Seve.ral
symptoms showed significant area trends in a direction opposite to that
which would support the hypotheses; these included sleeplessness, difficulty
in urinating, sinus congestion, eye irritation, and runny nose.
For all areas combined, X^ tests were also done for the relation-
ship between symptoms and amount bothered by the odor. Only the percent
reporting headache frequently or occasionally showed a positive relation-
ship to amount bothered; this occurred among women and in both sexes
combined (Table 7). In spite of the lack of relationship found between
this symptom and area of exposure, these results would support the
hypothesit that headache may be related to exposure to the odor. None of
the MRC questions showed a significant relationship to amount bothered by
the odor (Table 8).
The distribution of the respondents by smoking within each area
and sex is shown in Table 9. Because of the relatively small numbers of
observations, it is not leasible to make area comparisons within each
smoking category. However, the relatively large percent of smokers among
60
-------
women in Area I should be considered in interpreting the significantly
higher proportion with Grade 1 or greater phlegm.
RESULTS OF EXPOSURE MEASUREMENTS
The most important results relevant to evaluation of the annoyance
reactions are shown in Tables 10,11, and 12, which show, respectively.
the percent of total observations which indicated detection of odor,
diurnal odor concentration at the 95th percentile, and the maximum odor
concentration detected. The percent of measurable odor detections
(Table 10) indicates that odor was detected by dynamic olfactometry most
frequently in Area I and least frequently in Area II. These trends are
confirmed by the 95th percentiles for each hour for all days combined
(.Table 11), and by the means of the maximum values for each hour (Table 12)
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The results of the 1971 survey of annoyance reactions showed
chat, as in the 1969 survey, Area I represents the area of greatest
exposure to odor from the pulp mills. This was confirmed by the exposure
measurements made by dynamic olfactometry. The area gradient between
Areas II and III was not as clear, although it was still demonstrable in
terms of the frequency with which odor was noticed. In view of the
ambiguous results of annoyance as measured by amount bothered by odor
and by the observations made by dynamic olfactometry, the frequency
with which symptoms were reported was tested for two possible area trends:
61
-------
Areas I, II, III and Areas I, III, II. Constipation showed a significant
area trend using the former sequence of areas, while Phlegm Grade 1 or
greater showed a significant trend for both sequences. For all areas
combined, headache showed a positive relationship to the amount by which
the respondent was bothered by the odor. No significant trends or rela-
tionship to amount bothered were found for visits to a doctor or a hos-
pital or for illness during the two weeks preceding the interview, or for
the respondents estimate of general health.
The evidence supporting a possible causative relationship between
health and exposure to pulp mill odor is based on small numbers of ob-
servations. The relatively small numbers of observations prohibited
adequately accessing the possible role of smoking.
62
-------
Table 1
DESCRIPTION OF POPULATION SAMPLES
BY AREA AND SEX
EUREKA, 1971
Sample Size
Respondents
Non-Respondents
Refusals
Unable to Locate
Dwelling Unit
Unoccupied
AREA I
Total
51
45
5
3
2
1
Male
24
20
3
1
2
1
Female
27
25
2
2
AREA 11
Total
52
47
3
2
1
2
Male
24
20
2
1
1
2
Female
28
27
1
1
-
AREA III
Total
54
48
2
1
1
4
Male
22
20
_
_
2
Female
32
28
2
1
1
2
63
-------
Table 2
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH PULP MILL ODOR WAS NOTICED
AND EXTENT TO WHICH BOTHERED
EUREKA, 1971
Number of Respondents
How Often Noticed, Total
Every Day
At Least Once a Week
At Least Once a Month
Less Often or Don't Know
Not Noticed at All
How Much Bothered, Total
Very Much or Moderately
Little or Not at All, or Odor
Not Noticed
Unknown
Number Who Noticed Odor
How Much Bothered, Total
Very Much or Moderately
Little or Not at All
Unknown
TOTAL
Total
140
100.0
7.9
30.7
22.9
12.1
26.4
100.0
40.7
53.6
5.7
111
100.0
51.4
41.4
7.2
Area I
45
100.0
13.3
48.9
26.7
6.7
4.4
100.0
62.2
37.8
4.3
100.0
65.1
34.9
Area II
47
100.0
6.4
31.9
29.8
10.6
21.3
100.0
36.2
59.6
4.3
39
100.0
43.6
51.3
5.1
Area III
48
100.0
4.2
12.5
12.5
13.8
52.1
100.0
25.0
62.5
12.5
29
100.0
41.4
37.9
20.7
MALE
Total
60
100.0
6.7
23.3
23.3
13.3
33.3
100.0
33.3
58.3
8.3
45
100.0
'44.4
44.4
11.1
Area I
20
100.0
15.0
40.0
30.0
5.0
10.0
100.0
55.0
45.0
18
100.0
61.1
:38.y
Area II
20
100.0
5.0
20.0
30.0
10.0
35.0
100.0
25.0
65.0
10.0
15
100.0
33.3
53.3
13.3
Area III
20
100.0
10.0
10.0
25.0
55.0
100.0
20.0
65.0
15.0
12
100.0
33.3
41.7
25.0
FEMALE
Total
80
100.0
8.8
36.2
22.5
11.2
21.2
100.0
46.2
50.0
3.8
66
100.0
56.1
39.4
4.5
Area I
25
100.0
12.0
56.0
24.0
8.0
-
100.0
68.0
32.0
-
25
100.0
68.0
32.0
Area II
27
100.0
7.4
40.7
29.6
11.1
11.1
100.0
44.4
55.6
24
100.0
50.0
50.0
Area UI
28
' 100.0
7.1
14.3
14.3
14.3
50.0
100.1
28.6
60.7
10.7
17
1 0O.U
47.1
35.3
. 17.6
-------
Table 3
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS
FREQUENTLY AND FREQUENTLY OR OCCASIONALLY
EUREKA, 1971
Number of
Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Sleeplessness
Dizziness, Nausea,
or Vomiting
Constipation
Pain in Joints
Difficulty in
Urinating
Sinus Congestion
Eye Irritation
Burning or Irritation
of tlie Nose
Runny Nose
Chest Pains
FREQUENTLY
OR OCCASIONALLY
Total
140
55.7
37.9
32.1
7.9
15.7
37.9
2.9
42.1
21.4
12.1
28. 6
5.7
Area I
45
55.6
40.0
31.1
8.9
22.2
44.4
2.2
37.8
13.3
8.9
24.4
8.9
Area II
47
53.2
31.9
29.8
8.5
8.5
36.2
6.4
31.9
21.3
12.8
27.7
4.3
Area III
48
58.3
41.7
35.4
6.2
16.7
33.3
0.0
56.2
29.2
14.6
33.3
4.2
FREQUENTLY
Total
140
20.0
10.0
10.7
0.0
3.6
14.3
0.7
19.3
7.9
3.6
8.6
1.4
Area I
45
26.7
13.3
4.4
0.0
2.2
17.8
0.0
13.3
0.0
0.0
2.2
().()
Area 11
47
12.8
8.5
12.8
0.0
2.1
17.0
2.1
21.3
12.8
4.3
6.4
2.1
Area III
48
20.8
8.3
14.6
0.0
6.2
8.3
0.0
22.9
10.4
6.2
16.7
2.1
65
-------
Table 4
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS Rt-PORTING SYMPTOMS
FREQUENTLY OR OCCASIONALLY BY SEX AND AREA
EUREKA, 1971
Number of
Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Sleeplessness
Dizziness, Nausea,
or Vomiting
^Constipation
Pain in Joints
Difficulty in
Urinating
Sinus Congestion
Eye Irritation
Burning or Irritation
of the Nose
Runny Nose
Chest Pains
MALE
Total
60
31.7
26.7
30.0
5.0
15.0
36.7
1.7
38.3
18.3
11.7"
25.0
3.3
Area I
20
35.0
25.0
20.0
5.0
15.0
35.0
0.0
30.0
15.0
10.0
20.0
1 0.0
Area 11
20
30.0
25.0
30.0
10.0
10.0
35.0
5.0
25.0
15.0
15.0
30.0
0.0
Area III
20
30.0
30.0
40.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
0.0
60.0
25.0
10.0
25.0
0.0
FEMALE
Total
80
73.8
46.2
33.8
10.0
16.2
38.8
3.8
45.0
23.8
12.5
31.2
7.5
Area I
25
72.0
52.0
40.0
12.0
28.0
52.0
4.0
44.0
12.0
8.0
28.0 ,
8.0
Area 11
27
70.4
37.0.
29.6
7.4
7.4
37.0
7.4
37.0
25.9
11.1
25.9
7.4
Area III
28
78.6
50.0
32.1
10.7
14.3
28.6
0.0
53.6
32.1
17.9
39.3
7.1
Trend significant at the 5% level among women for the area sequence
I, III, II ^X2=4.01 with 1 degree of freedom).
66
-------
Table 5
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS
FREQUENTLY OR OCCASSIONALLY BY AREA AND
AMOUNT BOTHERED BY PULP MILL ODOR
.EUREKA, 1971
Number of
Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Sleeplessness
Dizziness, Nausea,
or Vomiting
'Constipation
Pain in Joints
Difficulty in
Urinating
Sinus Congestion
Eye Irritation
Burning or Irritation
of the Nose
Runny Nose
Chest Pain
VERY MUCH OR
MODERATELY BOTHERED
BY PULP MILL ODOR
Total
57
59.6
50.9
33.3
12.3
21.1
42.1
3.5
42.1
26.3
17.5
35.1
7.0
Area I
28
50.0
50.0
32.1
10.7
21.4
46.4
0.0
42,9
14.3
14.3
35.7
10.7
Area II
17
64.7
52.9
35.3
11.8
17.6
41.2
11.8
35.3
35.3
17.6
35.3
0.0
Area III
12
75.0
50.0
33.3
16.7
25.0
33.3
0.0
50.0
41.7
25.0
33.3
8.3
LITTLE OR
NOT AT ALL BOTHERED
BY PULP MILL ODOR
Total
75
53.3
28.0
33.3
5.3
13.3
36.0
2.7
42.7
17.3
8.0
24.0
5.3
Area I
17
64.7
23.5
29.4
5.9
23.5
41.2
5.9
29.4
11.8
0.0
5.9
5.9
Area 11
28
46.4
21.4
28.6
7.1
3.6
35.7
3.6
28.6
14.3
10.7
25.0
7.1
Area II!
30
53.3
36.7
40.0
3.3
16.7
33.3
0.0
63.3
23.3
10.0
33.3
3.3
Trends significant at the 5% level among those a little or not at all
bothered for the area sequence I, III, II (x^=3.97 with 1 degree of
freedom).
67
-------
Table 6
PERCENT REPORTING COUGH, PHLEGM, SHORTNESS OF BREATH,
AND RECENT ILLNESS BY SEX AND AREA
EUREKA, 1971
Number of Observations
Cough Grade 1 or 2
Cough Grade 2
*Phlegm Grade 1 or 2
Phlegm Grade 2
Persistent Cough and
Phlegm
Shortness of Breath
Grade 2 or Greater
Grade 3 or Greater
Sick Within Last 2 Weeks
Saw Doctor Within
Last 2 Weeks
Patient in Hospital
Within Last 2 Weeks
General Estimate of Health
Excellent or Good
F:iir or Poor
TOTAL
Area 1
45
24.4
11.1
24.4
11.1
13.3
40.0
2.2
8.9
15-6
2.2
77.8
22.2
Area 11
47
14.9
8.5
10.6
6.4
6.4
31.9
8.5
10.6
21.3
2.1
87.2
12.8
Area III
48
27.1
10.4
10.4
6.2
8.3
33.3
6.2
8.3
14.6
2.1
83.3
16.7
MALE
Area I
20
25.0
10.0
15.0
10.0
15.0
40.0
0.0
5.0
20.0
5.0
75.0
25.0
Area II
20
10.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
30.0
5.0
10.0
20.0
0.0
90.0
10.0
Area III
20
35.0
10.0
15.0
5.0
15.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
15.0 ,
0.0
85.0
15.0
FEMALE
Area I
25
24.0
12.0
32.0
12.0
12.0
40.0
4.0
12.0
!
12.0
o.o ;
80.0
20.0
Area 11
27
18.5
11.1
11.1
3.7
7.4
33.3
11.1
11.1
22.2
3.7
85.2
14.8
Area Hi
28
21.4
10.7
7.1
7.1
3.6
39.3
10.7
14.3
14 J
3.6
82.1
17.9
Trend significant at
(X2= 5.85 and 4.01
the 5% level for females for area sequences I, 11, Ml and 1, 111, II
with I degree of freedom).
68
-------
Table 7
PERCENT REPORTING SYMPTOMS FREQUENTLY OR OCCASSIONALLY
BY SEX AND AMOUNT BOTHERED BY PULP MILL ODOR
EUREKA, 1971
ID
Number of
Respondents
Nervousness
"Headache
Sleeplessness
Dizziness. Nausea.
or Vomiting
Constipation
Pain in Joints
Difficulty in
Urinating
Sinus Congestion
Eye Irritation
Burning or Irritation
of the Nose
Runny Nose
Chest Pains
BOTH SEXES
Total
140a
55.7
370
3-U
7.9
15.7
37.9
2.9
42.1
21.4
12.1
28.6
5.7
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
57
59.6
50.9
33.3
12.3
21.1
42.1
3.5
42.1
26.3
17.5
35.1
7.0
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
75
53.3
28.0
33.3
5.3
13.3
36.0
2.7
42.7
17.3
8.0
24.0
5.3
MALE
Total
60b
28.3
25.0
28.3
5.0
15.0
35.0
1.7
35.0
16.7
10.0
23.3
3.3
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
20
30.0
35-0
30.0
5.0
15.0
45.0
0.0
35.0
25.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
35
31.4
22.9
31.4
5.7
17.1
34.3
2.9
40.0
14.3
8.6
25.7
0.0
FEMALE
Total
80C
71.2
43.8
33.8
10.0
16.2
37.5
3.8
43.8
22.5
12.5
30.0
7.5
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
37
75.7
59.5
35.1
16.2
24.3
40.5
5.4
45.9
27.0
18.9
40.5
5.4
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
40
72.5
32.5
35.0
5.0
10.0
37.5
2.5
45.0
20.0
7.5
22.5
10.0
a
b
Includes 8 amount bothered unknown.
Includes 5 amount bothered unknown.
Includes 3 amount bothered unknown.
X~ tests for percent reporting symptoms by amount bothered statistically significant at 5% level iX~=6.23 for
both sexes combined: X 5.63 for females).
-------
Table 8
PERCENT REPORTING COUGH, PHLEGM, SHORTNESS OF BREATH,
AND RECENT ILLNESS BY SEX AND AREA
EUREKA, 1971
Number of Observations
Cough Grade 1 or 2
Cough Grade 2
Phlegm Grade 1 or 2
Phlegm Grade 2
Persistent Cough and
Phlegm
Shortness of Breath
Grade 2 or Greater
Grade 3 or Greater
Sick Within Last 2 Weeks
Saw Doctor Within
Last 2 Weeb
Patient in Hospital
Within Last 2 Weeks
General Estimate of Health
Excellent or Good
Fair or Poor
BOTH SEXES
Total
140a
22.3
10.0
15.0
7.9
9.3
35.0
5.7
9.3
17.1
2.1
82.9
17.1
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
57
19.3
7.0
14.0
8.8
7.0
40.4
5.3
12.3
19.3
1.8
77.2
22.8
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
75
24.0
10.7
14.7
6.7
9.3
33.3
6.7
8.0
16.0
2.7
88.0
12.0
MALE
Total
60^
23.3
8.3
13.3
8.3
11.7
31.7
1.7
5.0
18.3
1.7
83.3
16.7
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
20
20.0
5.0
15.0
15.0
10.0
45.0
5.0
10.0
30.0
0.0
80.0
20.0
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
35
22.9
5.7
8.6
2.9
8.6
25.7
0.0
2.9
14.3
2.9
88.6
11.4
FEMALE
Total
80C
21.2
11.2
16.2
7.5
7.5
37.5
8.8
12.0
16.2
2.5
82.5
17.5
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
37a,b
18.9
8.1
13.5
5.4
5.4
37.8
5.4
13.5
13.5
2.7
75.7
24.3
Little ov
Not at All
Bothered
40
25.0
15.0
20.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
12.5
12.5
17.5
2.5
87.5
12.5
a Includes 8 amount bothered unknown.
Includes 5 amount bothered unknown.
c includes 3 amount bothered unknown.
-------
Table 9
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY SMOKING CATEGORY
WITHIN EACH AREA AND SEX
SMOKING HISTORY
Never Smoked
Ex-Smokers
Present Cigarette
Srjiokers
Pipe and Cigar
or Mixed Smokers
TOTAL
Area I
45
17.8
13.3
57.8
11.1
Area II
47
40.4
19.1
31.9
8.5
Area III
48
33.3
22.9
43.8
0.0
MALE
Area I
20
10.0
20.0
45.0
25.0
Area II
20
20.0
30.0
35.0
15.0
Area III
20
25.0
20.0
55.0
0.0
FEMALE
Area I
25
24.0
8.0
68.0
0.0
Area 11
27
55.6
11.1
29.6
3.7
Area III
28
39.3
25.0
35.7
0.0
71
-------
Table 10
PERCENT MEASURABLE ODOR DETECTIONS
(ODOR FREQUENCY)
EUREKA, 1971
TIME OF DAY
Total 0800-1 630
Number of Observations
Percent With Odor
0800-1130
Number of Observations
Percent With Odor
1200-1630
Number of Observations
Percent With Odor
AREA I
190
19.5
85
4.7
105
31.4
AREA 1 1
285
6.0
123
3.3
162
8.0
AREA III
376
13.3
172
7.0
204
18.6
72
-------
Table 11
DIURNAL MALODOR CONCENTRATION AT 95th PERCENTILE
BY AREA AND TIME
(as ppb CH3SH)
EUREKA, 1971
TIME OF DAY
0800
0830
0900
0930
1000
1030
1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
1400
1430
1500
1530
1600
1630
Percent Detectable
Mean of Measurable
Detections
AREAJ
4.1
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
3.9
9.0
2.0
4.8
9.9
13.6
2.7
21.0
N.D.
9.7
12.8
61.1
8.5
AREA 11
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
15.3
N.D.
N.D.
6.6
N.D.
3.8
N.D.
3.4
8.7
1.1
N.D.
33.3
6.5
AREA III
4.2
3.4
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
13.5
N.D.
N.D.
8.6
N.D,
0.4
N.D.
7.3
15.0
8.8
10.4
14.5
55.6
8.6
73
-------
Table J 2
MAXIMUM MALODOR CONCENTRATION DETECTED*
BY AREA AND TIME
(as ppb CH3SH)
EUREKA, 1971
SAMPLING INTERVAL
BEGUN AT
0800
0830
0900
0930
1000
1030
1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
1400
. 1430
1500
1530
1600
1630
Percent Detectable
Mean of Measurable
Detections
AREA I
5.1
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
6.5
17.9
5.0
7.9
11.3
16.5
2.8
14.8
N.D.
11.5
14.1
61.1
10.3
AREA II
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
16.9
N.D.
N.D.
0.7
N.D.
6.3
N.D.
3.4
9.1
11.1
3.8
38.9
7.3
AREA 111
4.2
5.1
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
16.9
N.D.
N.D.
9.8
5.1
2.2
N.D.
47.8
20.6
9.9
11.6
15.4
61.1
13,5
N.D.
In each case the concentration ranged from
none detected to the maximum shown.
None detected which means less than 2 x
minimum O.T. of the observer - essen-
tially 0.
-------
Figure I
EUREKA, CALIFORNIA
-------
REFERENCES
1. National Goals in Air Pollution Research, US Surgeon General's Ad Hoc
Task Group on Air Pollution Research Goals (Public Health Service Pub-
lication No. 804), US Dept HEW (August) 1960, Washington, D.C.
2. Medalia, N.Z.: Community Perception of Mr Quality: An Opinion Survey
in Clarkston, Washington, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
(Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-10), US Dept HEW. (June)
1965, Cincinnati, Ohio.
3. Friberg, L. ; Jonsson, E.; and Cederlof, R. : Studier over Sanitara
Olagenheter av Rokgaser fran en Sulfatcellulosafabrik (I), Nordisk
Hygienisk Tidskrift 41:41-50, 1960.
4. Cederlof, R.; Friberg, L.; Jonsson, E.; Kaij, L.; and Lindvall, T. :
Studies of Annoyance Connected with Offensive Smell from a Sulphate
Cellulose Factory, Nordisk Hygienisk Tidskrift 45:39-48, 1964.
5. Smith, W.S.; Schueneman, J.J.; and Zeidberg, L.D.: Public Reaction tb
Air Pollution in Nashville, Tennessee, APCA J 14:418-423 (October) 1964.
6. Jonsson, E. : Deane, M. : Sanders, G.: Community Reactions to Odors from
Pulp Mills, A Pilot Study in Eureka, California. Unpublished.
7. Deane, M.; Jonsson, E. : Trends in Community Annoyance Reactions to
Odors from Pulp Mills, Eureka, California, 1969-1971.
8. Sanders, G.; Umbracoj R.; Twiss, S.; Mueller, P.K.: The Measurement of
Malodor in a Community by Dynamic Olfactometry AIHL Report No. 86,
California State Health Department, Berkeley.
9. AIHL Recommended Method Number 25A: Measurement of Odor Concentration by
Dynamic Olfactometry. State Department of Public Health, Berkeley.
10. Jonsson, E.: Om Olika Metoder for Studier av Yttre Miljofaktorers
Storande Effekt, Norkisk Psykologi 14:270-28.8, 1962.
11. Medical Research Council's Committee on the Aetiology of Chronic
Bronchitis, Brit. Med. J., 11:1655, 1960.
76
-------
HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO COMMUNITY ODORS FROM PULP MILLS
Eureka, 1971
APPENDIX
Definitions of Variables
Table 2
Positive responses to two questions were used to measure the frequency
with which pulp mill odor was noticed by the respondent:
A. "Have you noticed odors from industries here at home during
the last three months? What industries?" (Pulp mills were
not specifically mentioned to the respondent. See page 10 of
the questionnaire.)
B. "Some people here in Eureka have been complaining about odors
from the pulp mills. Here in your house have you noticed the
odors during the last three months?" (This question was asked
only of respondents who had not already mentioned pulp mill to
the question concerning odors from industry. See page 12 of
the questionnaire.)
For each question, respondents who gave a positive response were asked:
C. "How often? Is it every day, at least once a week, at least
once a month, or less often?" The "not noticed at all" category
77
-------
included individuals who did not know whether they had noticed
the pulp mill odor. (See pages 10 and 12 of the questionnaire.)
Individuals who had given positive answers to either questions A or B
(above) were classified according to the extent bothered by pulp mill
odor according to responses to the following question:
D. "Would you say it has bothered you only a little, moderately,
very much, not at all?" (See pages 10 and 12 of the question-
naire.)
Tables 3-5, 7
The frequency with which symptoms were reported were tabulated from re-
sponses to the following:
"I am going to read you a list of symptoms and I should like you
to tell me whether you have each one frequently, occasionally or
hardly ever."
Tables 6, 8
The tables on cough, phlegm, and shortness of breath were tabulated from
responses to the following section of the questionnaire:
PREAMBLE: "I am going to ask you some questions, mainly about your
chest. I should like you to answer 'YES' or 'NO1 whenever
possible."
78
-------
COUGH
1. "Do you usually cough first thing in the morning (on getting up)?"
Count a cough with first smoke or on first going out of doors.
Exclude clearing throat or a single cough.
i
3. "Do you usually cough during the day - or at night?"
Ignore an occasional cough.
If 'No' to both questions 1 and 3, go to question 6.
If 'Yes' to either question 1 or 3:
5. "Do you cough like this on most days (or nights) for as much as three
months each year?"
PHLEGM
6. "Do you usually bring up any phlegm from your chest first thing in the
morning (on getting up)?"
Count phlegm with the first smoke or on first going out of doors. Exclude
phlegm from the nose. Count swallowed phlegm.
8. "Do you usually bring up any phlegm from your chest during the day - or at
night?"
Accept twice or more.
If 'Yes' to either question 6 or 8:
79
-------
10. "Do you bring up phlegm like this on most days (or nights) for as much
as three months each year?"
BREATHLESSNESS
14a. "Are you troubled by shortness of breath when hurrying on level ground
or walking up a slight hill?"
If 'Yes' to question 14a:
lAb. "Do you get short of breath walking with other people of your own age
on level ground?"
If 'Yes' to question 14b:
14c. "Do you have to stop for breath when walking at your own pace on
level ground?"
Cpugh, phlegm, and shortness of breath were graded as follows:
Cough Grade 0: 'No' to both questions 1 and 3 or 'no1 to
question 5.
Grade 1: 'Yes' to either questions 1 or 3 and 'yes' to
question 5.
Grade 2: 'Yes' to both questions 1 and 3 and 'yes' to
question 5.
80
-------
Phlegm Grade 0: 'No' to both questions 6 or 8 or 'no' to
question 10.
Grade 1: 'Yes' to either questions 6 or 8 and 'yes'
to question 10.
Grade 2: 'Yes' to both questions 6 and 8 and 'yes' to
question 10.
Shortness of Breath
Grade 1: 'No' to question 14a.
Grade 2: 'Yes' to question 14a and 'no' to question 14b.
Grade 3: 'Yes' to question 14b and 'no' to question 14c,
Grade 4: 'Yes' to question 14c.
81
-------
SECTION VI-C
TRENDS IN COMMUNITY ANNOYANCE REACTIONS TO ODORS FROM PULP MILLS
EUREKA, CALIFORNIA
1969, 1971
Introduction
Perhaps no more pervasive nor offensive odor exists in community air
pollution than that associated with pulp mill operation. Previous
studies have shown that exposure to the odor may result in sponta-
neous complaints and in frequent expressions of annoyance in response
to interviews conducted as part of a community survey. ~^ In addition,
some evidence has been accumulated suggesting the existence of medical
3 ft
symptoms which are attributed by the sufferer to pulp mill odor. '
In 1969 a systematic survey of annoyance reactions to pulp mill odor
was undertaken in Eureka, California. The primary objective of the
study was to determine whether a relationship between annoyance
reactions and exposure measurements could be demonstrated by the
comparison of residential areas with different presumptive exposure
to the odor (based on distance from the mill and meteorological
conditions). It was shown that both the frequency with which odor
was noticed and the frequency and intensity with which respondents to
an interview expressed annoyance corresponded to the presumptive
exposure gradient across three residential areas. This gradient was
confirmed by exposure measurements made by a survey of the areas using
dynamic olfactometry. These results and the methods used have been
described in detail elsewhere.*>~°
Preceding page blank «
-------
In 1971 a repeat survey of annoyance reactions was supplemented by
an expanded health survey with two objectives. First, to estimate
change in annoyance reactions using the results of the 1969 survey
as a basis for comparison and, second, to determine whether significant
differences in responses to the health questionnaire were related to
the degree of exposure to pulp mill odor. Because of the differences
in the medical sections of the 1969 and 1971 surveys it was not possible
to make direct comparisons between the two studies in this respect.
The results of the medical study, therefore, will be reported else-
where, and this report is limited to a comparison of annoyance reactions.
Methodology and Materials
The same general methods of sampling and of carrying out the field
work were used in both 1969 and 1971. Two of the three residential
areas had the same boundaries in both studies, but the samples for the
1971 survey were chosen so as to exclude households that were included
in the 1969 survey (systematic sample using a random start in each
area). The third area was so small that it would not have been
possible to choose a sample of adequate size without including some of
the households sampled in 1969. Therefore, a nearby area was used
which was judged to have about the same exposure and the same general
socioeconomic level. The composition of the samples and their sex
distribution is shown in Table 1. The original samples were augmented
to replace unoccupied houses; the numbers described as "sample" include
these additional households and represent the total numbers of houses
approached. The methods of replacement were, however, somewhat
84
-------
different in each year. In 1969 larger samples than needed were
initially selected in each area and a portion of each was randomly
selected to be held for use in replacing vacant houses.. In 1971,
replacement of each vacant house was made after the selection of the
initial sample by randomly selecting a replacement between the sample
households on either side. In both surveys it was randomly determined
for each household whether a man or a woman (usually the head of
household or spouse) was to be interviewed, but if an adult of the
designated sex was not living in the household, any available adult
was interviewed. Because of the sample design and the population
structure of the area surveyed, more women than men were represented
among the respondents.
Exposure Data
The exposure to odor in the three areas was estimated by dynamic
olfactometry. The measurements are based on the "odor dilution
factor" which is the ratio of ambient air (air to which the community
is exposed) to odorless air at which the observer just detects malodor.
This is converted to the equivalent of parts per billion of a specific
odorant by multiplying by the odor threshold of each observer, which
is the ratio of a known dilution of a specific odorant to odorless
air at which the observer just detects the malodor.
The sensitivity of the method is a function of the observer's odor threshold
and the lowest dilution of odorant to odorless air that can be measured on
the olfactometer. In 1969, daily measurements were made during three two-
week periods in June, July, and August. In 1971, daily measurements
85
-------
were made during a single two-week period in September. Two observers
were exposed to the ambient air at several sites in each of the three
areas at half-hourly intervals during the day. The odor threshold of
each observer was measured twice a day. The sampling sites, the method
of sampling the ambient air and the instrumentation and technique of
7 8
using the olfactometer are described in detail elsewhere. '
Questionnaire and Interviewing
The questionnaires for both the 1969 and the 1971 surveys consist of
five major sections exclusive of the health section (Appendix). The
first section deals with such background data as age, occupation and
family structure; the second section with satisfaction with general
conditions in the residential area in the community; and the third
section with attitudes toward air pollution and noise problems in the
residential area. The questions of greatest interest in the study
occur in the fourth section, which deals specifically with the effects
of odors from pulp mills. The fifth section of the questionnaire
consists of questions designed to measure attitudes toward pollution
and noise problems in general. In 1971, the questionnaire included, in
addition, an expanded health section with questions to be asked of all
respondents.
In both 1969 and 1971 the interviewing was carried out in August, a
similar method of training the interviewers was used in both studies,
-4-
86
-------
in both studies the interviewing was completed as quickly as
possible to reduce the possibility of the results being affected by
discussion of the survey within the community. The interview was
introduced to the respondents as part of a survey on how people, feel
about the community in which they live. In order to mask the principal
aim of the study no mention was made of health or of odor from the
pulp mills. This has been found in previous studies to be important
in obtaining unbiased results.
In the following discussion, the three areas are designated Area I,
Area II and Area III representing, respectively, the areas of high,
moderate and low exposure.
Results of Annoyance Survey
I. Perception of the Exposure Situation
The frequency with which the respondents reported noticing the pulp
mill odor was used as a measure of their perception of the odor
situation, as shown in Table 2.
To simplify the discussion of area comparisons of responses by
frequency category, the following designations will be used:
A. Every day
B. At least once a week (but less often than every day)
C. At least once a month (but less often than once a week)
D. Less often than once a month
E. Not at all
87
-------
Between 1969 and 1971 the overall proportion of individuals in
Cateory A dropped by about one-third (Figure I), with a smaller
drop occurring in Category B. The decreases in these proportions
were offset principally by an increase in the proportion in
Category C. Less change occurred in the proportions in Categories
D and E. In other words, almost as large a proportion of individuals
noticed the odor in 1971 as in 1969, but on the average they noticed
it less frequently. These trends occurred within both Areas I and
II, but Area III (the area with the least presumptive exposure to
the odor) showed a somewhat different pattern. Increases occurred
in the proportions in Categories A, B and E, offset by a large
decrease in Category C and a small decrease in Category D. Thus
in Area III there was some overall increase in the proportion
noticing the odor, and those who noticed it tended to notice it more
frequently. This may be due either to changes in exposure to odor or
to changes in sensitivity. The same between-area gradients are
maintained in both years as shown by cumulative frequency curves in
Figure II.
II. Annoyance Reactions
A. Extent to Which Bothered by the Odor
In all three areas there was an overall marked decrease between
1969 and 1971 in the proportion of individuals "not at all
bothered" by the odor based only on those who reported noticing
the odor (Table 3). In Areas I and II decreased also occurred
in the proportion "very much bothered", offset principally by
increased in the proportions "moderately bothered" or "a little
88
-------
bothered". In Area III (the least exposed area) the very sharp
drop in the proportion "not bothered at all" is offset by
increases in all the other three categories but especially in
the "very much bothered" category (almost double)- These
trends are summarized in Figure III. As can be seen in both
Figures III and IV, the area differences in degree of annoyance
are less in 1971 than in 1969. It is also demonstrated in Figure
IV that the differences between areas in 1971 did not follow
the area differences in presumptive odor exposure. To summarize,
a larger proportion of people were bothered in 1971, but except
in Area III, they were bothered to a smaller extent than in 1969.
B. Frequency With Which Bothered by the Odor
Based only on individuals who reported being very much or
moderately bothered by the odor, the proportions of the
respondents bothered "often" and "occasionally" decreased
between 1969 and 1971 and the proportions "seldom bothered" more
than doubled (Table 4, Figure V); these trends, however, occurred
only in Areas I and II, the reverse being noted in Area III.
As shown in Figure VI, between-area differences based on
cumulative proportions occurred about as expected.
7
89
-------
III. Implications of the Annoyance Reactions
In both surveys respondents were given an opportunity to mention
the pulp mill odor in response to open-ended questions concerning
community problems (spontaneous mention of odor), in response to
open-ended questions about odor from industries (semi-probed
mention of odor), and in response to specific questions about
pulp mill odor (probed mention of odor). The resulting variable
is interpreted as a measure of the saliency of the problem as
perceived by the respondent.
As shown in Table 5, the proportions of respondents in 1969 who
mentioned odor spontaneously in Areas I, II and III were, respect-
ively, 52%, 20% and 4%. The corresponding proportions in 1971 were
44%, 36% and 19%. In both years the respondents who were very much
or moderately bothered by the pulp mill odor tended to mention the
odor in response to the open-ended questions on disadvantages of
living in the community, reasons for considering moving, or harmful
influences in the community. In contrast, those who reported being
only a little or not at all bothered by the odor were more apt
not^ to mention it until asked specifically about odors from industries.
Only seven individuals in 1969 and two in 1971 who had not previously
mentioned the pulp mill odor gave positive responses to a direct
question about it.
The importance of pulp mill odors as a community problem was also
evaluated by tabulating the responses to a question asking whether
90
-------
the respondent had ever thought of requesting, or had actually
requested, some authority or agency to take action concerning the
odors. The responses are shown in Table 6. The "thought of taking
action" category also includes individuals who had given the pulp mill
odors as a reason why they had felt like moving away from the community
in response to an earlier question. In both years about the same
proportion (46.2% in 1969 compared to 40.4% in 1971) of those very
much or moderately bothered had taken some action concerning the
odor, such as writing or phoning an official, signing a petition,
or attending a meeting. However, a considerable increase (from
0.9% to 25.3%) occurred in the proportion of those only a little or
not at all bothered who had taken action. Furthermore, in 1969 the
expected area differences (a greater tendency toward action among
those living in areas with greater exposure to the odor) occurred in
the "very much or moderately bothered" category, while in 1971 the
expected area differences occurred in the "little or not at all
bothered" category, but not among those "very much or moderately
bothered".
IV. Relevance of the Background Variables to Annoyance Reactions
Both surveys included questions to provide information on variables
which might cause apparent area differences in annoyance reactions.
Two-by-two tables were constructed comparing responses on each of
these "background" variables with the annoyance variable, which was
-9-
91
-------
based on whether or not the respondent was very much or moderately
bothered by the pulp mill odor. The construction and results of
the x2 tests for the 1969 data are shown in detail in a previous
paper.^ The results for both years are summarized in Table 7-
Two differences between the two years should be noted; in 1971,
a x2 significant at the 5% level was obtained for the relation-
ship between the annoyance variable and whether or not the respondent
or spouse held a job associated with the mills. This relationship
had not been found in 1969, but this might have been a result of
the small number of individuals in the sample with jobs at the
mills (8 out of 158 in 1969 compared to 19 out of 132 in 1971).
The other difference was a nonsignificant ^ obtained in 1971 for
the housing index, which had shown a significant relationship to
the annoyance variable in 1969.
In Table 7 the underlined category for each variable is that.category
with the larger proportion of respondents who were "very much or
moderately bothered" in both years. With respect to occupation,
"estimation of noise problem in Eureka" and "concern about other
community problems", the relationships to annoyance were opposite
in 1971 to those occurring in 1969, but neither of these relationships
was significant.
Of the variables showing a significant relationship to annoyance,
all except age, household structure, housing index, and job
associated with the mills could have been an effect of, as well
92
-------
as a cause of, annoyance. In any case, the area differences in
the proportion of individuals annoyed when examined within strata
of each significant background variable conformed to the overall
area differences, and it is, therefore, unlikely that the overall
area differences merely reflected differences in the background
variables (Tables 8 and 9).
Results of Exposure Measurements
A summary of the exposure measurements made by dynamic olfactometry
is presented in Tables 10, 11 and 12 which show, respectively,
the percent of odor observations which indicate a measurable
detection of odor, the diurnal malodor concentration at the 95th
percentile and the maximum malodor concentration detected. In
1969 comparison of results for the three areas showed that Area I
had the greatest exposure to odor, Area II had an intermediate
exposure, and Area III had the least exposure, regardless of which
of these three indices of exposure is used. This agrees with the
presumptive exposure of the areas to pulp mill odor, as well as
with the annoyance reactions of the respondents in each area.
However, in 1971, this area gradient did not occur in the
olfactometry measurements, nor did the annoyance reactions show
as consistent a gradient as had been demonstrated in 1969. The
percent of dynamic olfactometry measurements in which odor was
-11-
93
-------
detected showed the expected drop from Area I and Area II, but
Area III showed a percent of detections about midway between
the percents for Areas I and II in the afternoon hours and a
higher percent of detections than either Areas I or II in the
morning (Table 10). Area III showed about the same percent of
detections as Area I at both the 95th percentile and the
maximum (Tables 11 and 12). Furthermore, the arithmetic means
of the detectible odor concentration for Area III exceeded those
of Area I, both at the 95th percentile and at the maximum
(Table 13). These measurements are summarized in Table 14, which
also shows that Area III had a larger number of observations (by
half-hourly intervals) which showed an increase over the two-year
period than Areas I and II regardless of whether one considers
the 95th percentile or the maximum values at each time interval.
Discussion and Summary
The three areas did not exhibit identical trends in annoyance reactions
over the two-year period. In Areas I and II there was little change in
the proportion of respondents who noticed the odor (88.6% compared to
86.9%), but, on the average they noticed the odor less frequently. A
larger proportion of those who noticed the odor were bothered by it,
but they were bothered to a smaller extent and less often.
On the other hand, in Area III, the area with the least presumptive
exposure to the odors, the trends were somewhat different. There appears
-------
to have been an increase in the proportion of respondents who noticed
the odor, and they tended to notice it more frequently. A larger
proportion of those who noticed the odor were bothered both to a
greater extent and more often. This opposing trend over time in Area
III results in a difference in the relationship between areas in 1971
when compared, with that which had been observed in 1969.
Area differences within each year were evaluated by using cumulative
proportions because of the difficulty of interpreting shifts between
individual frequency and extent categories. The expected area dif-
ferences (based on presumptive exposure to odor) occurred in both
1969 and 1971 for the frequency with which odor is noticed. That is,
in both years respondents in Area I tended to notice the odor most
frequently and respondents in Area III tended to notice the odor least
frequently. However, in 1971, although both Areas II and III were
consistently lower than Area I in the extent and frequency with which
the respondents were bothered, Area III no longer was consistently
lower than Area II.
Compared with 1969, the proportion of individuals who mentioned pulp
mill odors spontaneously in 1971 shows an increase in Area I, but a
decrease in Areas II and III. An increase occurred in the proportion
of respondents reporting they were "a little" or "not at all bothered"
who had taken action concerning the odor.
-13-
95
-------
Exposure measurements made by dynamic olfactometry indicate that the
presumptive area gradient based on distance from the pulp mills and
location with respect to prevailing wind patterns was not confirmed
in 1971 as it had been in 1969. There are several factors which should
be considered; in evaluating this apparent change. First, the period
of sampling was not identical in both years. The sampling in 1969
was carried out during three two-week periods in June, July and August,
while in 1971 * the sampling took place during a single two-week period
in September. The differences in results could be attributable to a
difference in wind patterns. It may also be of some relevance that
there were fewer observations covering a shorter time period in 1971
than in 1969, resulting in a greater effect of random variation. The
1971 data, therefore, were intended largely to confirm that the area
differences detected in 1969 had not changed significantly. The
second factor to be considered, and this is relevant in relation to
the annoyance reactions as well as to the olf actometry measurements,
is the replacement of Area III as originally delineated in 1969 < by
an adjacent area. As explained earlier, this was necessary to avoid
resampling the respondents used in the 1969 survey. It is possible,
although unlikely, that the exposure of the new Area III is substantially
difference from the exposure of the old Area III and that it does not,
in fact, bear the same exposure relationship to Areas I and II. In
either case, it is noteworthy that the apparent change in the relation-
ships of the three areas with respect to olfactometry measurements
appears to be reflected by the annoyance reactions although not by the
proportion of respondents who reported noticing the odors.
96
-------
The possible effects of selective migration should not be ignored.
For example, the area of least exposure to the odor might tend to
attract individuals who are particularly sensitive to it.
97
-------
Table 1
DESCRIPTION OF POPULATION SAMPLES
BY AREA AND SEX
Eureka, 1969, 1971
Sample Size
Respondents
Nonrespondents
Refusals
Unable to locate
Dwelling unit
unoccupied
Sample Size
Respondents
Nonrespondents
Refusals
Unable to locate
Dwelling unit
unoccupied
AREA I
Total
59
52
3
1
2
4
Male
Female
AREA II
Total
Male
Female
AREA III
Total
Male
Female
1969
26
22
1
0
1
3
33
30
2
1
1
1
59
55
4
4
0
0
24
23
1
1
0
0
35
32
3
3
0
0
56
51
T
1
0
4
1971
51
45
5
3
2
1
24
20
3
1
2
1
27
25
2
2
0
0
52
47
3
2
1
2
24
20
2
1
1
2
28
27
1
1
0
0
54
48
2
1
1
4
28
25
1
1
0
2
28
26
0
0
0
2
22
20
0
0
0
2
32
28
2
1
1
2
98
-------
Table 2
PERCENT NOTICING PULP MILL ODOR
BY FREQUENCY WITH WHICH NOTICED AND AREA
Eureka 1969, 1971
Total Number of
Observations
Percent
Every day
At least once a week
At least once a month
Less often
Not at all
1969
Total
158
100.0
12.0
37.3
17.1
13.3
20.3
I
52
100.0
23.1
57.7
9.6
3.8
5.8
II
55
100.0
12.7
41.8
12.7
12.7
20.0
III
51
100.0
0.0
11.8
29.4
23.5
35.3
1971
Total
132
100.0
8.3
32.6
24.2
12.9
22.0
I
45
100.0
13.3
48.9
26.7
6.7
4.4
II
45
100.0
6.7
33.3
31.1
11.1
17.8
III
A2
100.0
4.8
14.3
14.3
21.4
45.2
Includes ''don't know how often''.
-99-
-------
Table 3
PERCENT BOTHERED BY PULP MILL ODOR
BY EXTENT TO WHICH BOTHERED
Eureka 1969, .1971
Total Number Reporting
That Odor Was Noticed
Percent
Very much bothered
Moderately bothered
A little bothered
Not bothered at all1
1969
Total
126
100.0
24.6
16.7
27.0
31.7
I
49
100.0
30.6
22.4
24.5
22.4
II
44
100.0
29.5
9.1
29.5
31.8
III
33
100.0
9.1
18.2
27.3
45.5
1971
Total
103
100.0
23.3
32.0
34.0
10.7
I
43
100.0
25.6
39.5
23.3
11.6
II
37
100.0
21.6
24.3
43.2
10.8
III
23
100.0
21.7
30.4
39.1
8.7
Includes those who did not know how much they were bothered.
100
-------
Table 4
PERCENT BOTHERED BY PULP MILL ODOR
BY FREQUENCY WITH WHICH BOTHERED
Eureka 1969, 1971
Total Very Much or
Moderately Bothered
Percent
Often (several times
a week)
Occasionally (weekly)
Seldom (less often or
don't know)
1969
Total
52
100.0
26.9
55.8
17.3
I
26
100.0
34.6
61.5
3.8
II
17
100.0
29.4
64.7
5.9
III
9
100.0
0.0
22.2
77.8
1971
Total
57
100.0
15.8
43.9
40.4
I
28
100.0
17.9
46.4
35. 7a
II
17
100.0
11.8
47.0
41.1
III
12
100.0
16.7
33.2
50.0
Includes 2 respondents frequency unknown.
101
-------
Table 5
SPONTANEITY OF MENTION OF PULP MILL ODOR BY EXTENT TO WHICH BOTHERED
Eureka 1969, 1971
Total Number of Respondents
Spontaneous mention of
pulp mill odor
Semi -probed mention of
pulp mill odor
Probed mention of pulp
mill odor
No mention of pulp mill
odor
Total Number of Respondents
Spontaneous mention of
pulp mill odor
Semi-probed mention of
pulp mill odor
Probed mention of pulp
mill odor
No mention of pulp mill
odor
AREA I
Very Much
or
Moderately
Bothered
Little
or Not
at All
Bothered
AREA II
Very Much
or
Moderately
Bothered
Little
or Not
at All
Bothered
AREA III
Very Much
or
Moderately
Bothered
Little
or Not
at All
Bothered
1969
26
20
6
0
0
26
7
16
1
2
28
17
11
0
0
17
3
12
0
2
17
8
9
0
0
38
3
21
3
11
9
1
7
1
0
42
1
21
2
18
1971
17
12
5
0
0
28
4
15
1'
8
12
3
8
1
0
30
5
1
0
18
o
K)
-------
Table 6
ACTION BY EXTENT TO WHICH BOTHERED BY PULP MILL ODOR
Eureka 1969, 1971
Total
Took action
Thought of taking
action
No action
Total
Took action
Thought of taking
action
No action
Npt asked
AREA I
Very Much
or
Moderately
Bothered
26
16
1
9
Little
or Not
at All
Bothered
AREA II
Very Much
or
Moderately
Bothered
Little
or Not
at All
Bothered
AREA III
Very Much
or
Moderately
Bothered
Little
or Not
at All
Bothered
1969
26
1
0
25
17
5
1
11
38
0
0
38
9
3
1
5
42
0
0
42
1971
28
11
1
14
2
17
5
2
9
1
17
9
1
7
0
28
6
1
21
0
12
3
3
6
0
30
8
1
21
0
o
CO
-------
X2 TESTS OF BACKGROUND VARIABLES
(One degree of freedom)
Eureka 1969, 1971
Sex
Male vs. female
Age
<50 vs. 50+
Marital status
Married vs. other
Occupation
White collar vs. blue collar/professional
Job associated with mills
(respondent or spouse)
No vs . yes
General attitude toward odor
Annoyed vs. not annoyed
Attitude toward pulp mills
Bad vs. good
General attitude toward noise
Annoyed vs. not annoyed
Estimation of odor problem in Eureka
Greater than other cities its size vs. other
Estimation of noise problem in Eureka
Less than other cities its size vs. other
Attitude of authorities toward air pollution
Too little concern vs. other
Household structure
Children vs. adults only
Satisfaction with community
Things other than pulp mill odor
don't like vs. none
Housing index
1-2 vs. 3-5 (see appendix)
Concern about other community problems
At least one other rated serious vs. other
Exposure (hours/day)
Six or less vs. other
How long in area
Same area before mills vs. other
1969
2.06
10.88**
0.53
1.28
0.01
40.66**
18.96**
0.14
30.73**
0.54
26.49**
5.88*
0.01
7.02**
0.65
0.00
0.01
1971
1.34
7.37**
0.12
0.48
5.55*
35.23**
7.32**
2.61
13.96**
0.03
20.01**
5.46*
0.04
1.79
0.74
0.25
2.27
* Significant at 5% level.
** Significant at 1% level.
Note: Underlined categories have a larger proportion of respondents
, who were '.'very much or moderately bothered'' in boch years.
-------
PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS VERY MUCH OR MODERATELY BOTHERED IN EACH AREA
WITHIN STRATA OF VARIABLES SHOWING SIGNIFICANT x2 VALUES
Eureka, 1969
Age
< 50 years
> 50 years
General attitude toward
odor
Annoyed
Not Annoyed
Attitude toward pulp mills
Good
Bad
Attitude of authorities
toward air pollution
Too little concern
Other
Estimation of odor problem
Greater than other cities
Other
Household structure
Adults only
Children
Housing index'
1-2
3-5
I
Number
of
Respondents
37
15
27
25
42
10
23
29
15
37
18
34
23
29
Percent
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
64.9
13.3
74.1
24.0
42.9
80.0
78.3
27.6
80.0
37.8
16.7
67.6
34.8
62.1
II
Number
of
Respondents
28
27
29
26
42
13
21
34
13
42
36
19
33
22
Percent
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
39.3
22.2
58.6
0.0
16.7
76.9
61.9
11.8
84.6
14.3
30.6
31.6
21.2
45.5
III
Number
of
Respondents
29
22
22
29
45
6
16
35
10
41
25
26
27
24
Percent
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
20.7
13.6
36.4
3.4
15.6
33.3
25.0
14.3
40.0
12.2
20.0
15.4
14.8
20.8
o
on
-------
PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS VERY MUCH OR MODERATELY BOTHERED IN EACH AREA
WITHIN STRATA OF VARIABLES SHOWING SIGNIFICANT x2 VALUES
Eureka, 1971
Age
< 50 years
504
Job associated with mills
Yes
No
General attitude toward
odor
Annoyed
Not annoyed
Attitude toward pulp mills
Good
Bad
Estimation of odor problem
in Eureka
Greater than other cities
its size
Other
Attitude of authorities
toward odor
Too little concern
Other
Household structure
Adults only
btliex
I
Number
of
Respondents
20
25
5
40
27
18
40
5
12
33
22
23
27
18
Percent
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
55.0
68.0
40.0
65.0
88.9
22.2
57.5
100.0
83.3
54.6
81.8
43.5
51.8
77,8
II
Number
of
Respondents
18
27
6
39
22
23
39
6
13
32
12
33
29
16
Percent
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
27.8
44.4
0.0
43.6
54.6
21.7
30.8
83.3
69.2
25.0
66.7
27.3
31.0
5O.O
III
Number
of
Respondents
17
25
8
34
22
20
36
6
10
32
11
31
25
17
Percent
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
23.5
32.0
12.5
32.4
54.6
0.0
25.0
50.0
60.0
18.8
54.6
19.4
20.0
41.2
-------
Table 10
PERCENT MEASURABLE ODOR DETECTIONS
(Odor Frequency)
Eureka 1969, 1971
-
TT MF 0V DAY
Total 0800-1630
Number of Observations
Percent With Odor
0800-1130
Number of Observations
Percent With Odor
1200-1630
Number of Observations
Percent With Odor
AREA I
1969
564
37.4
256
23.4
308
49.0
1971
190
19.5
85
4.7
105
31.4
AREA II
1969
846
14.1
384
13.5
462
14.5
1971
285
6.0
123
3.3
162
8.0
AREA III
1969
1128
5.9
512
3.5
616
8.0
1971
376
13.3
172
7.0
204
18.6
107
-------
Table 11
DIURNAL MALODOR CONCENTRATION AT 95th PERCENTILE
BY AREA AND TIME
(as ppb CH3SH)
Eureka 1969, 1971
TIME OF DAY
0800
0830
0900
0930
1000
1030
1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
1400
1430
1500
1530
1600
1630
AREA I
1969
5.9
5.9
3.1
6.5
7.6
3.6
15.1
4.1
4.1
16.9
5.0
18.0
12.3
21.2
17.1
9.5
9.7
30.1
1971
4.1
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
3.9
9.0
2.0
4.8
9.9
13.6
2.7
21.0
N.D.
9.7
12.8
AREA II
1969
7.2
1.0
16.5
1.9
N.D.
17.6
3.9
10.4
8.4
2.4
2.8
21.1
2.6
N.D.
9.0
N.D.
N.D.
5.7
1971
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
15.3
N.D.
N.D.
6.6
N.D.
3.8
N.D.
3.4
8.7
1.1
N.D.
AREA III
1969
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
0.6
2.0
3.8
1.1
2.6
2.6
N.D.
N.D.
8.0
N.D.
N.D.
7.3
N.D.
1971
4.2
3.4
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
13.5
N.D.
N.D.
8.6
N.D.
0.4
N.D.
7.3
15.0
8.8
10.4
14.5
108
-------
Table 12
MAXIMUM MALODOR CONCENTRATION DETECTED*
BY AREA AND TIME
(as ppb CH-jSH)
Eureka 1969, 1971
SAMPLING INTERVAL
BEGUN AT
0800
0830
0900
0930
1000
1030
1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
1400
1430
1500
1530
1600
1630
AREA I
1969
8.9
12.9
11.4
52.5
59.2
6.4
24.7
5.6
10.1
38.6
33.3
19.7
28.1
249.6
47.1
16.6
26.0
239.4
1971
5.1
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
6.5
17.9
5.0
7.9
11 .3
16.5
2.8
14.8
N.D.
11.5
14.1
AREA II
1969
4.4
2.4
28.2
3.8
N.D.
38.9
5.5
16.5
31 .2
2.9
5.0
170.7
23.9
0.9
12.6
1.2
N.D.
16.1
1971
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
16.9
N.D.
N.D.
0.7
N.D.
6.3
N.D.
3.4
9.1
11.1
3.8
AREA III
1969
N.D.
5.1
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
3.2
2.4
5.6
1.4
6.0
7.1
1.4
N.D.
21.9
1 .6
'N.D.
23.1
N.D.
1971
4.2
5.1
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
16.9
N.D.
N.D.
9.8
5.1
2.2
N.D.
47.8
20.6
9.9
11.6
15.4
N.D.
In each case the concentration ranged from none detected to
the maximum shown.
none detected which means less than 2 x minimum O.T. of
the observer - essentially 0.
109
-------
Table 13
SUMMARY OF DIURNAL OLFACTOMETRY MEASUREMENTS
Eureka 1969, 1971
Percent of 95th percentiles
which were measurable odor
detections
Percent of maximum values
which were measurable odor
o
detections^
Mean of measurable odor
detections at 95th percentile
averaged over all time
intervals
Mean of measurable odor
detections at the maximum
averaged over all time
intervals
AREA I
1969
100.0
100.0
10.9
49.4
1971
61.1
61.1
8.5
10.3
AREA II
1969
77.8
88.9
7.9
22.8
1971
33.3
38.9
6.5
7.3
AREA III
1969
44.4
61.1
3.5
3.0
1971
55.6
61.1
8.6
13.5
1See Table 11. This percent represents the proportion of the 18 time intervals
for which the 95th percentile was at a measurable level of odor detection.
O
See Table 12. This percent represents the proportion of the 18 time intervals
which had measurable maximum values.
110
-------
Table 14
CHANGE IN MAXIMUM AND 95TH PERCENTILE VALUES
FOR HALF HOUR TIME INTERVALS
BETWEEN 1969 AND 1971
Eureka
mum
''jnber of time intervals
bowing increase
mber of time intervals
bowing no change
fnber of time intervals
Showing decrease
,Percentile
[fiber of time intervals
liuwing increase
Utober of time interval
-lipwing no change
mber of time intervals
bowing decrease
AREA I
2
0
16
3
1
14
AREA 11
4
1
13
5
2
11
AREA III
8
5
5
9
4
5
111
-------
EUREKA, CALIFORNIA
1969,1971
-------
Figure I
TRENDS IN PERCENT NOTICING PULP MILL ODOR
liY FREQUENCY WITH WHICH NOTICED AND AREA
EUREKA, 1969, 1971
A
Every day
(Y'A
J
B
At least
once u week
_L
C
At least
once a month
I
1 969
1971 1969
1971 1969
1
D
Less often
All areas
Area I
Area II
Area III
I
E
Not at all
I
1971 1969
1971 1969
1971
113
-------
Figure II
AREA COMPARISONS BY YEAR
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH PULP MILL ODOR IS NOTICED
(CUMULATIVE PERCENTS)
EUREKA, 1969, 1971
100
10
\
Less often
~~ At least once a month
At least once a week
Every day
1
AREA I
AREA II
1969
AREA III
AREA I
AREA II
1971
AREA 111
114
-------
I'injure 111
TRENDS IN PERCENT BOTHERED BY PULP MILL ODOR
BY EXTENT TO WHICH BOTHERED AND AREA
EUREKA, 1969, 1971
Very much bothered
I
I
Moderately bothered
_L
I
A little bothered
Not at all bothered
All areas
Area I
Area II
Area III
I
I
1969 1971 1969 1971 1969
Note: Pi'uents based on total who noticed the odor.
1971 1969
1971
115
-------
Figure IV
AREA COMPARISONS BY YEAR
EXTENT TO WHICH BOTHERED BY PULP MILL ODOR
(CUMULATIVE PERCENTS)
EUREKA, 1969, 1971
100 r
10
Not at all bothered
At least a little
At least moderately
Very much
J.
_L
AREA I AREA II AREA III
1 969
AREA I
AREA II
1971
AREA II)
Note: Perccnts based on total who noticed the odor.
116
-------
Figure V
TRENDS IN PERCENT
VERY MUCH OR MODERATELY BOTHERED BY PULP MILL ODOR
BY FREQUENCY WITH WHICH BOTHERED AND AREA
EUREKA, 1969, 1971
100
10
Often
Occasionally
All Areas
Art-a I
Area II
Area III
I
Scld
1969
1971 1969
1971 1969
1971
Note: Percents based on total who were very much or moderately
bothered by rhc odor.
117
-------
Figure VI
AREA COMPARISONS BY YEAR
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH BOTHERED BY PULP MILL ODOR
FOR RESPONDENTS VERY MUCH OR MODERATELY BOTHERED
(CUMULATIVE PERCENTS)
EUREKA, 1969, 1971
100
10
-L
Scldoin
Occasionally
Often
JL
_L
AREA I
AREA II
1969
AREA III
AREA I
AREA II
1971
AREA III
Note: Pcrccnts based on total who noticed the odor.
118
-------
REFERENCES'
1. National Goals in Air Po.Liution Research, US Surgeon General's Ad
Hoc Task Group on Air Pollution Research.Goals (Public- Health
Service Publication No. 804), US Dept HEW (August) 1960, Washington,
D.C.
2. Medalia, N.Z.: Community Perception of Air Quality: An Opinion
Survey in Clarkston, Washington, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering
Center (Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-10), US Dept
HEW (June) 1965, Cincinnati, Ohio.
3. Friberg, L.; Jonsson, E.; and Cederlof, R.: Studier over Sanitara
Olagenheter av Rokgaser fran en Sulfatcellulosafabrik (I), Nordisk
Hygienisk Tidskrift 41:41-50, 1960.
4. Cederlof, R.; Friberg, L.; Jonsson, E.; Kaij, L.; and Lindvall, T.:
Studies of Annoyance Connected with Offensive smell from a Sulphate
Cellulose Factory, Nordisk Hygienisk Tidskrift 45:39-48, 1964.
5. Smith, W.S.; Schueneman, J.J.; and Zeidber, L.D.: Public Reaction to
Air Pollution in Nashville, Tennessee, APCA J 14:418-423 (October)
1964.
6. Jonsson, E.; Deane, M. ; Sanders, G.: Community Reactions to Odors
from Pulp Mills, A Pilot Study in Eureka, California. Unpublished.
7. Sanders, G.; Umbraco, R.; Twiss, S.; Mueller, P.K.: The Measurement
of Malodor in a Community by Dynamic Olfactometry AIHL Report No. 86,
California State Health Department, Berkeley.
8. AIHL Recommended Method 'Number 25A Measurement of Odor Concentration
by Dynamic Olfactometry. State Department of Public Health, Berkeley.
9. Jonsson, E.: Dm Olika Metoder for Studier av Yttre Miljofaktorers
Storande Effekt, Norkisk Psykologi 14:270-288, 1962.
MD:qjjl-14 & qkkl-7
119
-------
EUREKA PULP MILL STUDY
APPENDIX
Definitions of Analytic and Background Variables
Table 2
Positive responses to two questions were used to measure the frequency
with which pulp mill odor was noticed by the respondent:
A. "Have you noticed odors from industries here at home during
the last three months? What industries?" (Pulp mills were
not specifically mentioned to the respondent. See page 10 or
the questionnaire.)
B. "Some people here in Eureka have been complaining about odors
from the pulp mills. Here in your house have you noticed the
odors during the last three months?" (This question was asked
only of respondents who had not already mentioned pulp mill to
the question concerning odors from industry. See page 12 of
the questionnaire.)
For each question, respondents who gave a positive response were asked:
C. "How often? Is it every day, at least once a week, at least
once a month, or less often?" The "not noticed at all" category
120
-------
included individuals who did not know whether they had noticed
the pulp mill odor. (See pages 10 and 12 of the questionnaire.)
Table 3
Individuals who had given positive answers to either questions A or B
(above) were classified according to the extent bothered by pulp mill
odor according to responses to the following question:
D. "Would you say it has bothered you only a little, moderately,
very much, not at all?" (See pages 10 and 12 of the question-
naire. )
Table 4
Respondents who had indicated on question D that they were very much
or moderately bothered were tabulated by "frequency with which bothered"
on the basis of answers to question C (above) and an additional question:
E. "How often has it bothered you? Is it almost every time,
about half the time, less often?"
121 -
-------
The definitions of "frequency with which bothered" in terms of responses
to questions C and E are shown below:
How Often Noticed
(Question C)
Every day
At least once
a week
At least once
a month
Less often or
don't know
How Often Bothered (Question E)
Almost every time
or about half the time
Often
Occasionally
Seldom
Seldom
Less often
or don't know
Occasionally
Seldom
Seldom
Seldom
Table 5
Respondents were tabulated according to whether they mentioned the
pulp mill odor "spontaneously", gave a "semi-probed" response, or
gave a "probed" response, defined as follows:
"Spontaneous mention of pulp mill odors" was defined as mention of
pulp mill odors in response to the following questions:
F. "What are some of the things you don't like, about living
here?"
122
-------
G. "Have you ever felt like moving away from this residential
area?" If yes, "when you have felt like moving away, what
has the reason been?"
H. "If .you could find a similar apartment (house) which would
not be more expensive in another residential area, would
you like to move there?" If yes, "why would you like to do
this?"
I. "Is there anything here in the community that you think is
harmful for you or your family?" If yes, "what is this?"
Thc.se questions occur early in the questionnaire before either pulp
mill odors or odors from other industry have been mentioned by the
interviewer. (See pages 4-6 of the questionnaire.)
"Semi-probed mention of pulp mill odors" was defined as mention of
pulp mill odors in response to the following question if the respondent
had not already mentioned odor "spontaneously":
J. "Have you noticed odors from industries here at home during
the last three months?" If yes, "what industries?"
This question occurred before the interviewer had specifically mentioned
pulp mill odors. (See page 10 of the questionnaire.) Responses
mentioning pulp mill odor were called "semi-probed" only if the
respondent had, not previously mentioned pulp mill odors.
123
-------
"Probed mention of pulp mill odors" was defined as a positive response
to the following question, which was asked only if respondent had not
already given a "probed" or "semi-probed" pulp mill response:
K. "Some people here in Eureka have been complaining about odors
from the pulp mills. Here in your house have you noticed the
odors during the last three months?" (See page 12 of the
questionnaire.)
Table 6
Data shown on Table 6 were tabulated from positive responses with mention
of pulp mill odor to the following questions:
L. "Have you ever thought of requesting, or have you actually
requested some authority or agency to take action concerning
any of these problems, -e.g., by writing or phoning an official,
signing a petition, or attending a meeting?" If so, "what
problem was it?" (See page 8 of the questionnaire.)
M. "Have you ever felt like moving away from this residential
area?" If yes, "when you have felt like moving away, what
has the reason been?" (See page 5 of the questionnaire.)
124
-------
Tables 7-9
Background Variables
Attitude toward authorities was based on question 60, page 15 of
the questionnaire.
Satisfaction with community was based on questions 5, 7, and 8,
pages A and 5 of the questionnaire. Individuals who indicated
that there were things other than pulp mill odor that they did
not like about the residential area, were tested against all
others. Those who didn't know whether to rate the community
good, fair, or poor were included in the latter category.
Housing index was derived from the number of bedrooms in the
household and the number of married couples, single adults and
children. Households coded 1-2 as indicated below were tested
against those coded 3-5.
125
-------
Married
couples +
single
individuals
Bedrooms
3456789
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3
2
3
4
s
2
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
2
3
1
2
3 2
3 2
3 2
3
126
-------
SECTION VI-D
Health Effects of Pulp Mill Odor in
Anderson, California
Margaret Deane and John R. Goldsmith, M.D.
California State Department of Public Health
Bureau of Occupational Health and
Environmental Epidemiology
Supported in part by a contract with
Environmental Protection Agency
127
-------
INTRODUCTION
During late summer of 1970 the California Air and Industrial Hygiene
Laboratory carried out an environmental survey designed to measure the
presence and intensity of pulp mill odor in the Anderson-Cottonwood area
area of northern California. In spite of several limitations (discussed
below) this geographic location seemed appropriate for carrying out a
health survey in relation to exposure to pulp mill odor. A previous study
in a northern coastal area of California (Eureka) had been conducted during
the summer of 1969 to estimate annoyance reactions to pulp mill odor and
2
to test their relationship to several measurements of exposure to odor.
However, in the Eureka study questions concerning physical health were
asked only of respondents who indicated that they were "very much" or
"moderately" bothered by the odor. Furthermore, the health question was
phrased "Do you get any of the following, symptoms when you are bothered
by the odors?" The results have limited value for comparing the health
of individuals experiencing different levels of exposure to odor since
responses were not obtained from individuals who:
1. were not "very much" or "moderately" bothered by the odor;
2. lived in relatively odor-free areas;
3. did not attribute their symptoms to the odor.
In addition, the responses might have been biased because of the respondents'
attitudes toward the odor or their desire to force community action against
the source. A better measure of health ought to be obtained by a general
health survey of all members of a population sample chosen so as to represent
varying exposures to odor. The questionnaire or interview should make no
specific reference to the odor although the respondent might be given an
opportunity to attribute his symptoms to odor.
128
-------
'.ifMiYi AIMS
The specific aim of the Anderson study was to determine whether
community exposure to odor from pulp mills has any effect on health
measurable by the type of personal interview used. Implicit in the
design of such a study is the measurement and "control" (during
analysis) of other relevant factors which may affect the health
responses to the questionnaire. Studies previously done by other
investigations have demonstrated that annoyance reactions and med-
ical symptoms may occur in communities exposed to industrial odor.
METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS
Description of Study Area
According to an estimate made in 1967, the incorporated city of
Anderson has a population of 6,137 persons. The sampling frame for
the study was comprised of 1,246 households, including most of the
incorporated area as well as some unincorporated districts. The town
is located at the extreme north of the Sacramento Valley. Unlike
Eureka, which experiences the moderating climatic effect of the Pac.ifi^
Ocean, Anderson is exposed to seasonal extremes of temperature and
raJnfal.1 . Also in contrast to Eureka, which is exposed to a seasonal
shift in wind direction, Anderson is characterized year round by winds
from the northeast in the morning, shifting to the southeast in the
afternoon.
As mentioned above, several limitations of the area were recognized
with respect to population surveys. These included the relatively small
size of the community, the small proportion of the population which lives
near the pulp mill, and the predominantly rural character and modest
129
-------
housing of the area closest to the mill compared with the areas with
less exposure to the pulp mill odors.
Selection of Exposure Areas
Before the environmental survey, three areas of Anderson had been
defined as representing three levels of presumptive exposure to odor
on the basis of topography, prevailing winds, and distance from the
mill. (Figure I) These were subsequently confirmed by the exposure
measurements made by dynamic olfactometry. Although these measurements
were made in August and the health survey was carried out in November,
.!,'.'
the seasonal factor was not felt to be of importance because the pre-
vailing wind pattern is essentially the same all year round. Because
of the diurnal wind pattern measurements in Cottonwood (south of the
mill) were made in the morning, and measurements iii Anderson (north of
the mill) were made only in the afternoon.
As a result of the environmental survey, two areas farthest from
the mill in the Anderson sector were selected to represent moderate
and slight exposure to the odor. The areas clbsest to the mill in
both the Anderson and Cottonwood sectors were combined and expanded
slightly to represent the greatest exposure to the odor.
Exposure Measurements
The exposure to odor in the three areas was estimated by dynamic
olfactometry. The measurements are based on the "odor dilution factor,"
which is the ratio of ambient air (air to which the community is exposed)
to odorless air at which a trained observer just detects malodor. This
is converted to the equivalent of parts per billion of a specific odorant
130
-------
d ' inu.11 ip ly^n,.', !;/ lhc> odor threshold of each observe; , v/Mrii i.o tlit-
ratio of a known dilution of a specific odorant to odorless air at
which the observer just detects the malodor.
The sensitivity of the method is a function of the observer's odor
threshold and. the lowest dilution of odorant to odorless air that can
be measured on the olfactometer. In order to sample the ambient air
adequately,.daily observations were obtained during the period August 24
through September 4, 1970, excluding the weekend of August 29-30. Two
observers were exposed to the ambient air at several sites in each of
the three areas at half-hourly intervals during the day. The sampling
sites, tlie method of sampling the ambient air, and, the instrumentation
and technique of using the olfactometer are described in detail elsewhere. '
The odor threshold of each observer was measured twice a day.
Population Sampling
Preliminary scouting of the three "exposure" areas suggested that
significant differences occurred in housing and type of neighborhood,
including population density. These differences implied possible
differences in level of income and other social factors affecting health.
It was not feasible to characterize subareas with any degree of precision,
but some stratification seemed advisable. Consequently, each "exposure"
area was subdivided into three subareas, one characterized predominantly
by scattered rural housing, one by central town-type housing, and one
by suburban tract-type housing. The rural housing was defined primarily
on the basis of sparsity of settlement, but appeared to represent a
relatively Large proportion of housing of poor quality, frequently located
on property which included farm out-buildings and livestock. The suburban
tract-type housing was on the outskirts of town and was largely "California
131
-------
ranch" style. The housing in the central areas tended to be more modest
and was located in the older, central part of town with a conventional
grid pattern of streets.
The "exposure" areas will subsequently be referred to as Areas I, II
and III, representing high, moderate, and low exposure to pulp mill odor*
and the subareas will be designated as rural, central and tract.
Unfortunately, from the viewpoint of study design, Area I (high exposure),
is sparsely populated and fell entirely within the rural subgroup. The
highest rate of housing vacancy appeared to occur here. Areas II and III
are comprised of all three residential subgroups.
The sample sizes shown below (Table 1) were chosen so as to permit some
comparison within residential subgroups as well as between totals for each
of the three areas. The high sampling ratios may have been a disadvantage
because they increase the possibility of bias resulting from pre-interview
discussion of the survey among prospective respondents.
A sampling frame was constructed for each subarea by listing all houses
which appeared to be occupied. If houses included in the sample were found
to be unoccupied at the time of interview, they were replaced by sampling
randomly between the "interviewed" houses on either side.
Sampling was systematic with an independent random start in each subarea
Alternate households were designated to have a male or female respondent
interviewed. If a household did not have a respondent of the designated
sex, one of the other adult members was interviewed.
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire included information regarding date of birth, sex,
marital status, occupation and place of employment, length of residence
132
-------
in the area, pre-existing medical conditions, smoking habits, and exposure
to specific industrial hazards which might affect health. The basis
questions of the British Medical Research Council's Questionnaire on
Respiratory Symptoms (1966)° were included as a measure of chronic res-
piratory effects. This was followed by three sets of questions concerning
symptoms which it was believed might be associated with exposure to pulp
mill odor. The respondent was first asked whether he had each of these
symptoms frequently, occasionally, or hardly ever. For each symptom ex-
perienced frequently or occasionally, he was then asked whether there was
anything in particular which seems to bring it on, or whether he had ex-
perienced it during the past two weeks. He was also asked whether he had
been sick at any time during the last two weeks, and whether he would s.i,
that his health was excellent, good, fair, or poor. It proved to be
cumbersome and time-consuming to ask this much detail about the symptoms
on the list, but no estimate existed of the frequency of these symptoms
in the general population, and we hoped to obtain adequate frequencies c;f
positive responses to at least one of these questions to permit statistical
testing of the results. It was also felt that the respondent should be
given an opportunity to attribute symptoms to the pulp mill odor although
the odor was not mentioned at any time during the interview. The inter-
view was introduced to the respondent as a general health survey and no
reference was made to pulp mill odor anywhere in the questionnaire. This
has been found to be important in obtaining unbiased results.
Interviewing
Interviewing was carried out by two part-time and four full-time
interviewer.s, including two staff members who participated in other aspects
of the survey. Training began on the Wednesday evening preceding the field
133
-------
work and continued through part of the following Saturday. A preliminary
description of the study and run-through of the questionnaire and instructions
was followed by demonstration interviews by staff members and practice
interviews by staff members and trainees.
Standard training tape recordings of.demonstration interviews of
the MRC part of the questionnaire were also used. The most intensive
part of the training consisted of one-to-one interviewing practice
with members of the training staff, followed by playback of tape re-
cordings and group discussion. The final phase of training included
"real" interviews on members of a community not being included in the
survey proper. Completed questionnaires were edited by staff members
and discussed with the trainees.
The initial plan required each interviewer to interview the same
proportion of respondents in each area, and to do about the same propor-
tion of interviews on each day in each area. The former should have
equalized interviewer differences so that they would not appear as area
differences; the latter was to insrure that increasing community awareness
and discussion of the content of the study would occur at the same rate
in all areas. In practice, it became increasingly difficult to maintain
this schedule beyond the first few days of interviewing.
Each interviewer was usually seen by a staff member at least once a
day for collection of completed interview schedules, assignment of new
interviews, and discussion of problems. Preliminary editing of interview
schedules was done on a current basis so that omissions or errors could
be corrected while field work was still in progress.
134
-------
Statistical Analysis
The basic hypotheses being tested are that area trends exist in health
reactions, with Area I having the highest percent of respondents reporting
reactions and Area III the lowest. The test used is the x for trend test
described by Armitage. In this application, an assumption of linearity
of trend is made, and equally-spaced scores are chosen to represent each
area. In addition to testing the statistical significance of the trend,
f\
one may also test for departure from trend by comparing the x for trend
with the total 2 x 3 x2-
Other tests which could have been used to test for significant area
o
differences include the usual total 2 x 3 x > and paiirwise testing of area
r\
differences using 2 x 2 x (Area I vs. Area II, Area I vs. Area III, and
Area II vs. Area III) . The latter method would have altered the level of
significance in a manner similar to that encountered in multiple t-tests.
ij
The total 2 x 3 x test would not have given appropriate weight tc consis-
tencies in the direction of trend (Area I > Area II > Area III) . Unless
otherwise indicated, statistical significance refers to the 5% probability
«
level, but this does not necessarily imply that a higher significance level
was not attained .
RESULTS OF HEALTH SURVEY
The results of area comparisons for all housing subareas combined, that
is, making no distinction by rural, central, or tract housing, are shown in
Tables 2 through 5. Comparable results for rural subareas only (the only
type of housing occurring in all three areas) are shown in Tables 6 through 9
For the list of symptoms, totals for both sexes combined are shown for
percent of respondents reporting symptoms "frequently" and "frequently or
135
-------
occasionally" (Tables 2 and 6). Percents reporting symptoms "frequently
or occasionally", and "during the last two weeks" are shown separately by
sex (Tables 3-4, 7-8) as are the percents reporting the various MRC
conditions. (Tables 5 and 9). Information on symptoms within the
last two weeks was obtained only for respondents who had already re-
ported having the symptom frequently or occasionally.
For all areas combined, a statistically significantly greater percent
of women than men reported nervousness, headache, insomnia, and fatigue.
This occurs both for symptoms reported frequently, for those reported
frequently or occasionally, and for symptoms reported during the last
two weeks. These sex differences are not, however, consistent in all
areas. In addition, palpitations, dizzinesss, nausea, and shortness of
breath were reported frequently or occasionally by a significantly greater
percent of women than men.
For all subareas combined, significant area trends occur for the
percent reporting the following symptoms frequently or occasionally:
Headache, among both men and women; nausea, men only; runny nose, both
sexes combined; cough, men only (Table 3). Cprresponding trends occurred
for percents who reported the following symptoms during the last two weeks:
headache, both men and women; sinus congestion, both sexes combined; runny
nose, both sexes combined and men; and cough, .both sexes combined (Table 4).
No significant area trends were found for percents reporting symptoms only
frequently. All cough and phlegm MRC symptoms show significant area trends
for both sexes combined; phelgm grade 1 and 2, and persistent cough and
phlegm show significant trends for men (Table 5).
136
-------
Among the rural subareas, significant area trends occur for percents
reporting the following symptoms frequently or occasionally: shortness
of breath, men only; irritation of the nose, both sexes combined; and
chest pains, men only (Table 7). Significant trends were found for the
percent reporting symptoms during the last two weeks as well as frequently
or occasionally for the following symptoms: shortness of breath arid chest
pains, men only; cough, both sexes combined (table 8). The only significant
area trend found among respondents reporting symptoms frequently was for
cough reported by men. Significant trends for both sexes combined were
found for the MRC cough and phlegm symptoms.
Smoking habit (having never smoked, past smoker, present smoker) was
significantly related to the MRC symptoms, but among present cigarette
smokers, the amount smoked did not show a significant relationship to those
symptoms. Since smoking habits were found to not differ significantly by
exposure area, they were not taken into account in the analysis although
there were slightly higher percents of present smokers in Area I, as shown
in Table 9. The possible effect of subarea was tested by combining data
for Areas II and III (Area I had only rural housing) and stratifying by
rural, tract, and central town housing. A significant relationship of
subarea to cough arid phlegm was found and suggests that some apparent ex-
posure area differences could be due to differences in housing. However,
when area comparisons were made within the rural subareas only, (the only
subareas for which data are available for all three exposure areas), the
same significant area trends were found for the MRC cough and phlegm symptom
(Table 10).
Significant relationships were found between some of the background
variables and the frequency with which some of the sixteen listed symptoms
were reported. Occupation and industry showed significant relationships to
137
-------
nervousness, insomnia and palpitations. Marital status was significantly
related to nervousnes.s and fatigue.
Eight respondents attributed at least one symptom specifically to odor
in the air; these included headache, insomnia, sinus congestion, eye
irritation, burning or irritation of the nose, runny nose and cough. An
additional seventeen respondents attributed at least one symptom to air
pollution without specifically mentioning odor.
RESULTS OF EXPOSURE MEASUREMENTS
The results of the exposure measurements made by dynamic olfactometry.
are summarized in Tables 11 - 12. The area gradient which was predicted
on the basis of distance from the pulp mill is confirmed by the percents
of measurable odor detections shown by area in Table 11.
The area gradient is not as well supported by the maximum values de-
tected in each half hour interval although Area I clearly has a preponderance
of higher values than Areas II and III,
DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY
Several symptoms show some suggestion of being related to exposure to
pulp mill odor. These include headache, nausea, sinus congestion, runny
nose, and cough for all subareas combined; and shortness of breath, irri-
tation of the nose, cough, and chest pains for rural subareas only. Signi-
ficant area differences were also found for cough and phlegm as defined by
the MRC questions. It should be noted, however, that some of these results.
are based on relatively small numbers of observations. Furthermore, the
area differences could be related to some factor other than exposure.
The significant sex differences in reported symptoms emphasize the need
to make area comparisons separately by sex or to adjust for differences in
the proportions of men and women in each area.
138
-------
Although the area comparisons are inconclusive, they suggest that
the interview used is a useful method for further studies of the health
effects of exposure to pulp mill odor. Furthermore, relationships among
the health variables themselves give some evidence for the validity of
the questions. For example, responses to the question, "Would you say
that your health in general is excellent, good, fair or poor?", showed
a highly significant relationship to many of the other health questions.
The apparent effect of type of residential area indicates the impor-
tance of taking into account socio-economic variables in making area
comparisons. Larger sample sizes would increase the possibility of deter-
mining the effects of the background variables.
139
-------
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements are made to George Sanders for data from the
environmental survey and Madeline Thresh and Linda Scott for assis-
tance in the field work and data processing.
140
-------
Table 1
TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS,
SAMPLE SIZE AND SAMPLING RATIOS
BY EXPOSURE AREA AND HOUSING SUBAREA
Rural
Central
Tract
AREA I
Households = 11.5
Sampling
Ratio = 1:1
Sample = 100
Male = 48
Female 52
Households = 0
Households = 0
AREA II
Households = 67
Sampling
Ratio ' =1:1.3
Sample = 52
Male = 24
Female = 28
Households = 232
Sampling
Ratio = 1:4.6
Sampling = 45
Male " = 21
Female = 24
Households = 97
Sampling
Ratio = 1:1.9
Sample = 50
Male = 22
Female = 28
AREA III
Households = 1 54
Sampling
Ratio " =1:3
Sample - 51
Male = 19
Female = 32
Households = 298
Sampling
Ratio = 1:5.4
Sample = 50
Male = 22
Female - 28
Households = 383
Sampling
Ratio = 1:7.5
Sample = 51
Male = 21
Female = 30
141
-------
Table 2
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS
FREQUENTLY AND FREQUENTLY OR OCCASIONALLY
ANDERSON, 1970
Number of
Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Insomnia
Fatique
Palpitations
Dizziness
Nausea
Vomiting
Sweating
Sinus Congestion
Eye Irritation
Shortness of Breath
Nose Irritation
Runny Nose
Chest Pains
Cough
FREQUENTLY
Total
399
28.]
15.3
10.3
14.5
2.5
3.8
2.3
0.3
8.8
14.8
5.8
5.8
2.5
6.8
4.0
5.3
Area I
100
29.0
17.0
10.0
14.0
2.0
5.0
3.0
0.0
9.0
19.0
8.0
8.0
3.0
8.0
7.0
n.o
Area 11
147
26.5
16.3
8.8
12.9
2.0
3.4
1.4
0.0
8.2
15.0
6.1
5.4
4.1
8.8
2.7
2.0
Area III
152
28.9
13.2
11.8
16.4
3.3
3.3
2.6
0.7
9.2
11.8
3.9
5.9
0.7
3.9
3.3
4.6
FREQUENTLY
OR OCCASIONALLY
Total
399
50.1
38.3
23.1
38.8
12.5
16.8
8.8
3.0
18.0
34.3
17.0
19.5
6.8
26.6
10.3
23.1
Area 1
100
55.0
47.0
18.0
44.0
11.0
15.0
12.0
2.0
23.0
39.0
17.0
23.0
8.0
33.0
12.0
30.0
Area II
147
53.1
40.8
24.5
35,4
10.2
15.0
8.2
2.7
15.6
31.3
18.4
18.4
9.5
27.2
10.2
21.1
Area III
152
44.1
30.3
25.0
38,8
15.8
19.7
7.2
3.9
17.1
34.2
15.8
18.4
3.3
21.7
9.2
20.4
-------
Table 3
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS
FREQUENTLY OR OCCASIONALLY BY SEX AND AREA
ANDERSON, 1970
Number of
Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Insomnia
Fatigue
Palpitations
Dizziness
Nausea
Vomiting
Sweating
Sinus Congestion
Eye Irritation
Shortness of Breath
Nose Irritation
Runny Nose
Chest Pain
Cough
MALE
Total
177
34.5
30.5
14.7
27.1
7.9
10.1
5.1
1.7
14.7
32.8
15.3
14.7
5.6
24.3
9.6
26.0
Area 1
48
41.7
41.7
10.4
37.5
6.2
8.3
12.5
4.2
16.7
39.6
16.7
18.7
8.3
33.3
14.6
39.6
Area II
67
40.3
29.9
19.4
22.4
10.4
10.4
1.5
1.5
11.9
26.9
16.4
13.4
7.5
20.9
7.5
20.9
Area III
62
22.6
22.6
12.9
24.2
6.5
11.3
3.2
0.0
16.1
33.9
12.9
12.9
1.6
21.0
8.1
21.0
FEMALE
Total
222
62.6
44.6
29.7
48.2
16.2
22.1
11.7
4.1
20.7
35.6
18.5
23.4
7.7
28.4
10.8
20.7
Area 1
52
67.3
51.9
25.0
50.0
15.4
21.2
11.5
0.0
28.8
38.5
17.3
26.9
7.7
32.7
9.6
21.2
Area 11
80
63.8
50.0
28.8
46.2
10.0
18.8
13.8
3.8
18;8
35.0
20.0
22.5
11.2
32.5
12.5
21.2
Area 111
90
58.9
35.6
33.3
48.9
22.2
25.6
1 0.0
6.7
17.8
34.4
17.8
22.2
4.4
22.2
10.0
20.0
143
-------
Table 4
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS FREQUENTLY OR
OCCASIONALLY AND DURING THE LAST TWO WEEKS BY SEX AND AREA
ANDERSON, 1970
Number of
Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Insomnia
Fatigue
Palpitations
Dizziness
Nausea
Vomiting
Sweating
Sinus
Eye Irritation
Shortness of Breath
Nose Irritation
Runny Nose
Chest Pain
Cough
MALE
Total
177
19.2
17.5
10.2
18.1
2.8
2.3
1.7
1.1
6.2
17.5
7.3
7.3
2.8
11.9
8.5
17.5
Area I
48
22.9
27.1
6.2
27.1
0.0
4.2
2.1
2.1
6.2
25.0
6.2
10.4
4.2
20.8
12.5
29.2
Area II
67
19.4
17.9
11.9
13.4
3.0
0.0
1.5
1.5
4.5
14.9
6.0
7,5
3.0
11.9
6.0
11.9
Area III
62
16.1
9.7
11.3
16.1
4.8
3.2
1.6
0.0
8.1
14..5
9.7
4.8
1.6
4.8
8.1
14.5
FEMALE
Total
222
49.1
34.7
21.2
32.9
7.7
12.6
8.1
2.3
15.3
19.4
11.7
14.4
3.6
17.6
8.1
14.4
Area I
52
50.0
44.2
23.1
42.3
7.7
13.5
7.7
0.0
21.2
28.8
11.5
17.3
3.8
26.9
9.6
21.2
Area II
80
51.2
37.5
17.5
30.0
7.5
12.5
8.8
2.5
13.8
17.5
12.5
15.0
5.0
15.0
8.8
11.2
Area III
90
46.7
26.7
23.3
30.0
7.8
12.2
7.8
3.3
13.3
15.6
11.1
12.2
2.2
14.4
6.7
13.3
144
-------
Table 5
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING COUGH, PHLEGM, SHORTNESS OF BREATH,
AND RECENT ILLNESS BY SEX AND AREA
ANDERSON, 1970
Number ot
Respondents
Cough Grade 1 or 2
Cough Grade 2
Phlegm Grade 1 or 2
Phlegm Grade 2
Persistent Cough
and Phlegm
Shortness ot Breath
Grade 2 or Greater
Grade 3 or Greater
Sick Within Last
2 Weeks
MALE
Total
177
17.5
6.8
16.9
9.6
9.6
25.4
9.6
12.4
Area 1
48
22.9
10.4
25.0
16.7
16.7
29.2
6.2
12.5
Area 11
67
17.9
6.0
17.9
7.5
9.0
25.4
14.9
10.4
Area III
62
12.9
4.8
9.7
6.5
4.8
22.6
6.5
14.5
FEMALE
Total
222
11.3
4.5
9.9
5.4
4.5
40.5
7.2
69.4
Area I
52
15.4
9.6
17.3
9.6
9.6
38.5
9.6
78.8
Area 11
80
11.2
2.5
7.5
3.8
1.2
41.2
3.8
75.0
Area III
90
8.9
3.3
7.8
4.4
4.4
41.1
8.9
58.9
145
-------
Table 6
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS
'FREQUENTLY" AND "FREQUENTLY OR OCCASIONALLY"
RURAL SUBAREAS ONLY
ANDERSON, 1970
Number of
Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Insomnia
Fatigue
Palpitations
Dizziness
Nausea
Vomiting
Sweating
Sinus Congestion
Eye Irritation
Shortness of Breath
Nose Irritation
Runny Nose
Chest Pain
Cough
FREQUENTLY
Total
203
30.5
14.3
10.3
13.3
2.5
4.4
2.0
0.0
8.4
15.3
6.9
4.9
3.4
7.9
4.4
5.9
Area I
100
29.0
17.0
10.0
14.0
2.0
5.0
3.0
0.0
9.0
19.0
8.0
8.0
3.0
8.0
7.0
11.0
Area II
52
28.8
11.5
7.7
13.5
1.9
3.8
0.0
0.0
5.8
11.5
9.6
0.0
7.7
7.7
1.9
0.0
Area III
51
35.3
11.8
13.7
11.8
3.9
3.9
2.0
0.0
9.8
11.8
2.0
3.9
0.0
7.8
2.0
2.0
FREQUENTLY
OR OCCASIONALLY
Total
203
53.2
41.4
21.2
39.9
i'0.8
18.2
10.8
3.4
18.7
36.5
16.7
19.7
7.9
31.0
10.8
24.1
Area I
100
55.0
47.0
18.0
44.0
11.0
15.0
12.0
2.0
23.0
39.0
17.0
23.0
8.0
33.0
12.0
30.0
Area II
52
53,8
40,4
21.2
34.6
1.1
13.5
9.6
3.8
13.5
25.0
17.3
17.3
3.8
28.8
9.6
15.4
Area III
51
49.0
31.4
27.5
37.3
13.7
27.5
9.8
5.9
15.7
43.1
15.7
15.7
0.0
29.4
9.8
21.6
146
-------
Table 7
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS
FREQUENTLY OR OCCASIONALLY BY AREA
RURAL SUBAREAS ONLY
ANDERSON, 1970
Number of
Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Insomnia
Fatigue
Palpitations
Dizziness
Nausea
Vomiting
Sweating
Sinus Congestion
Eye Irritation
Shortness of Breath
Nose Irritation
Runny Nose
Chest Pain
Cough
MALE
Total
91
37.4
36.3
15.4
29.7
7.7
8.8
7.7
2.2
1.2.1
34.1
13.2
12.1
5.5
28.6
11.0
27.5
Area 1
48
41.7
41.6
10.4
37.4
6.2
8.3
12.5
4.2
16.7
39.6
16.6
18.7
8.4
33.3
14.6
39.6
Area II
24
41.7
33.3
20.8
25.0
8.4
8.4
. 4.2
0.0
8.4
16.6
12.5
8.3
4.2
25.0
8.4
12.5
Area III
19
21.0
26.3
21.0
15.8
10.5
10.5
0.0
0.0
5.3
42.1
5.3
0.0
0.0
21.0
5.3
15.8
FEMALE
Total
112
66.1
45.5
25.9
48.2
13.4
25.9
13.4
4.5
24.1
38.4
19.6
25.9
9.8
33.0
10.7
21.4
Area I
52
67.3
51.9
25.0
50.0
15.3
21.2
11.6
0.0
28.9
38.5
17.3
26.9
7.7
32.7
9.6
21.1
Area i I
28 .
64.2
46.4
21.4
42.9
7.1
17.9
14.3
7.1
17.8
32.2
21.4
25.0
21.4
32.1
10.7
17.9
Area III
32
65.6
34.4
31.3
50.0
15.6
40.6
15.6
9.4
21.8
43;8
21.9
25.0
3.1
34.3
12.5
25.0
147
-------
Table 8
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS
FREQUENTLY AND OCCASIONALLY AND DURING THE LAST TWO WEEKS
RURAL SUBAREAS ONLY
ANDERSON, 1970
Number of
Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Insomnia
Fatigue
Palpitations
Dizziness
Nausea
Vomiting
Sweating
Sinus Congestion
Eye Irritation
Shortness of Breath
Nose Irritation
Runny Nose
Chest Pain
Cough
MALE
Total
91
20.9
22.0
8.8
22.0
2.2
3.3
2.2
1.1
4.4
19.8
7.7
5.5
2.2
16.5
9.9
18.7
Area I
48
22.9
27.1
6.2
27.1
0.0
4.2
2.1
2.1
6.3
25.0
6.2
10.4
4.2
20.8
12.5
29.2
Area 11
24
20.8
20.8
8.3
20.8
4.2
0.0
4.2
0.0
4.2
8.3
12.5
0.0
0.0
12.5
8.3
4.2
Area III
19
15.8
10.5
15.8
10.5
5.3
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.0
5.3
0,0
0.0
10.5
5.3
10.5
FEMALE
Total
112
50.0
38.4
22.3
33.0
7.1
16.1
8.9
1.8
19.6
23.2
10.7
14.3
5.4
,22.3
7.1
16.1
Area I
52
50.0
44.2
23.1
42.3
7.7
13.5
7.7
0.0
21.2
28.8
11.5
17.3
3.8
26.9
9.6
21.2
Area II
28
46.4
39.3
14.3
17.9
7.1
17,9
7.1
3.6
14.3
14.3
14.3
10.7
14.3
14.3
3.6
7.1
Area III
32
53.1
28.1
28.1
31.2
6.2
18.8
12.5
3.1
21.9
21.9
6.2
12.5
0.0
21.9
6.2
15.6
148
-------
Table 9
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS
BY SMOKING CATEGORY
WITHIN EACH AREA
ANDERSON. 1970
Total
Never Smoked
Ex-Smoker
Present Smoker
Male
Never Smoked
Ex-Smoker
Present Smoker
Female
Never Smoked
Ex-Smoker
Present Smoker
Area 1
100.0
36.0
17.0
47.0
1 00.0
22.9
25.0
52.1
100.0
48.1
9.6
42.3
Area II
100.0
38.1
21.8
40.1
100.0
20.9
35.8
43.3
100.0
52.5
10.0
37.5
Area III
100.0
39.5
19.1
41.4
1 00.0
21.0
33.9
45.2
1 00.0
52.2
8.9
38.9
149
-------
Table 10
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING COUGH, PHLEGM,
SHORTNESS OF BREATH, AND RECENT ILLNESS
RURAL SUBAREAS ONLY
ANDERSON, 1970
Number of
Respondents
Cough Grade 1 or 2
Cough Grade 2
Phlegm Grade 1 or 2
Phlegm Grade 2
Persistent Cough
and Phlegm
Shortness of Breath
Grade 2 or Greater
Shortness of Breath
Grade 3 or Greater
MALES
Total
91
15.4
5.5
18.7
11.0
9.9
24.2
5.5
Area I
48
22.9
10.4
25.0
16.7
16.7
29.2
6.2
Area II
24
4.2
0.0
16.7
8.3
4.2
20.8
H.3
Area III
19
10.5
0.0
5.3
0.0
0.0
15.8
0.0
FEMALES
Total
112
10.7
4.5
14.3
8.9
6.2
40.2
7.1
Area I
52
15.4
9.6
17.3
9.6
9.6
38.5
9.6
Area II
28
7.1
0.0
17.8
10.7
3.6
42.9
0.0
Area III
32
6,2
0.0
6.2
6.2
, 3.1
40.6
9.4
150
-------
Table 11
PERCENT MEASURABLEvODOR DETECTIONS
(ODOR FREQUENCY)
ANDERSON, 1970
TIME
1300 1329
1330 1359
1400 1429
1430-1459
1500 1529
1530 1559
1600 1629
1630-1659
1700-1729
1730 1759
1800 1829
1830 1859 .
1900-1929
1930-1959
2000 2029
2030-2059
2100-2129
2130-2159
Overall
AREA 1
50.0
41.7
37.5
58.3
75.0
75.0
41.7
58.3
12.5
75.0
58.3
87.5
58.3
75.0
50.0
83.3
58.3
62.5
59.4
AREA II
22.2
50.0
22.2
22.2
11.1
11.1
5.6
50.0
0.0
5.6
0.0
0.0
44.4
0.0
38.9
22.2
0.0
0.0
17,0
AREA III
0.0
20.8
25.0
12.5
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
4.2
0.0
8.3
12.5
37.5
12.5
25.0
6.3
4.2
0.0
9.6
ALL AREAS
21.7
33.3
26.0
28.3
18.8
16.0
15.2
27.1
4.5
21.7
18. '8
20.0
45.7
25.0
34.0
30.7
16.7
11.4
23.2
TnUi! number of mulodor detections
(Overall frequency ' x 10(1)
Total number of measurement;.
151
-------
Table 12
MAXIMUM ODOR CONCENTRATION DETECTED
BY AREA AND TIME
(As ppb CH3SH)
ANDERSON, 1970
TIME
1300-1329
1330-1359
1400-1429
1430-1459
1500-1529
1530-1559
1600-1629
1630-1659
1700-1729
1730-1759
1800-1829
1830-1859
1900-1929
1930-1959
2000-2029
2030-2059
2100-2129
2130-2159
AREA I
58.0
14.8
39.5
55.0
49.0
266.2
46.6
72.4
17.6
19.0
216.8
384.5
19.1
1,681.4
33.7
67,6
43.8
16.6
AREA II
7.2
5.8
15.6
8.6
N.D.
81.0
13.6
8.2
N.D.
2.8
N.D.
N.D.
5.9
N.D.
19.4
4.9
N.D.
N.D.
AREA III
N.D.
34.4
15.5
4.2
N.D.
N.D.
2.7
N.D.
6.5
N.D.
3.2
3.7
75.7
22.6
6.0
6.6
27.2
N.D.
152
-------
Figure I
L
Indicates sampling sites
for dynamic olfactory
153
-------
REFERENCES
1. Sanders, G.R. and Umbraco, R.A.: Anderson Study; Olfactometry of
Kimberly-Clark Pulp Mill Emissions: AIHL Rept. No. 96, State of
California Department of Public Health (in manuscript), March 1971.
2. Johnson, E., Deane, M. and Sanders, G.: Community Reactions to
Odors from Pulp Mills: A Pilot Study in Eureka, California-
State of California Department of Public Health (in manuscript).
3. Friberg, L., Jonsson, E., and Cederlof, R.: Studier over
Sanitara Olagenheter av Rokgaser fran en Sulfatcellulosafabrik (I).
Nord Hyg T 41:41-50, 1960.
4. Cederlof, R. Friberg, L., Jonsson, E., Kai j, L., and Lindvall, T.:
Studies of Annoyance Connected with Offensive Smell from
a Sulphate Cellulose Factory. Nord Hyg T 45:39-48, 1964.
5. Smith, W.S., Schueneman, J.J. and Zeidberg, L.D.: Public
Reaction to Air Pollution in Nashville, Tennesse. J Air Pollut
Contr Ass. 14:418-423, 1964,
6. Medalia, N.Z.: Community Perception of Air Quality: An
Opinion Survey in Clarkston, Washington; USPHS Publication
No. 999-AP-10, 1965.
154
-------
7. Sanders, G.R., Umbraco, R.A., Twiss, S. and Mueller, P.K.:
The Measurement of Malodor in a Community by Dynamic Olfactometry ,
AIHL Report No. 86, California State Department of Public Health,
Berkeley, 1970.
8. AIHL Recommended Method 26-A, Measurement of Odor Concentration by
Dynamic Olfactometry, California State Department of Public Health,
Berkeley.
9. Medical Research Council's Committee on the Aetiology of Chronic
Bronchitis. Brit. Med. J., 11:1665, I960.
10. Jonsson, E.: Om Olika Metoder for Studier av Yttre Miljo-
faktorers Storande Effekt. Nord Psykol 14:270-288, 1962.
11. Armitage, P.: Tests for Linear Trends in Proportions and Frequencies,
Biometrics 10:375-386, 1955.
155
-------
SECTION VI-E
A COMPARISON OF POSTAL QUESTIONNAIRES
AND PERSONAL INTERVIEWS IN ESTIMATING
THE FREQUENCIES WITH WHICH SYMPTOMS ARE REPORTED
IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS EXPOSED TO PULP MILL ODORS
INTRODUCTION
During August of 1970 the California Air and Industrial Hygiene
Laboratory carried out an .environmental survey designed to measure
the presence and intensity of pulp mill odor in the'-Anderson-
Cottonwood area of northern California. In spite of several
limitations (discussed below) this geographic location seemed
appropriate for carrying out a health survey in relation to exposure
to pulp mill odor. A previous study in a northern coastal area of
California (Eureka) had.been conducted during the summer of 1969 to
estimate annoyance reactions to pulp mill odor and to test their
p
relationship to several measurements of exposure to odor. However,
in the Eureka study the health -questions were asked only of respon-
dents who indicated that they were "very much" or "moderately"
bothered by the odor.and referred only to symptoms which the respon-
dent attributed to the odor.
The Anderson study was designed as a health survey of a sample
of the population exposed to varying degrees of odor, without
regard to whether the respondents reported being bothered by the
odor or attributed their symptoms to it. The results of the survey
2
using personal interview have been reported in detail elsewhere.
The present paper deals with a comparison of a portion of these
results with the results of a postal questionnaire designed to be
as nearly as possible comparable to the interview.
Preceding page blank >-
-------
STUDY AIMS
The specific aim of this study is to determine whether the results
from personal interview and postal questionnaire lead to similar
conclusions concerning the possible health effects of community
exposure to pulp mill odor. Implicit in the design of such a study
is the selection of comparable population samples and the control
of extraneous variables which might affect comparability. The
significance of the results is to explore the possibility of
replacing the costly; sometimes cumbersome personal interview with
the less expensive postal survey.
METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS
Description of Study Area
According to an estimate made in 1967, the incorporated city of
Anderson has a population of 6,137 persons. The town is located
at the extreme north of the Sacramento Valley and is exposed to
seasonal extremes of temperature and rainfall. The wind pattern
is consistent throughout the year, being characterized by winds
from the northeast in the morning, shifting to the southeast in
the afternoon. The sampling frame for the original personal
interview study was comprised of 1,246 households, which included
most of the incorporated area as well as some unincorporated
districts.
As mentioned above, several limitations of the area were recog-
nized with respect to population surveys. These included the
relatively small size of the community, the small proportion
-------
of the population which lives near the pulp mill, and the pre-
dominantly rural character and modest housing of the area closest
to the mill compared with the areas with less exposure to the
pulp mill odors.
Selection of Exposure Areas
Before the environmental survey, three areas of Anderson had been
defined as representing three levels of presumptive exposure to
odor on the basis of topography, prevailing winds, and distance
frotn the mill (Figure I). The exposure was subsequently confirmed
by the measurements made by dynamic olfactometry. Although these
measurements were made in August and the health survey was carried
out the following November, the seasonal factor was felt to be
unimportant because the prevailing wind pattern is essentially the
same all year round. Because of the diurnal wind pattern, measure-
ments south of the mill were made in the morning, and measurements
north of the mill were made in the afternoon.
As a result of the environmental survey, the area farthest from
the mill was selected to represent slight exposure to the odor,
the area closest-to the mill was used to represent the greatest
exposure to the odor, and the area between represented moderate
exposure.
Exposure Measurements
The exposure to odor in the three areas was estimated by dynamic
olfactometry. The measurements are based on the "odor dilution
159
-------
factor", which is the ratio of ambient air (air to which the
community is exposed) to odorless air at which a trained observer
just detects malodor. This is converted to the equivalent of
parts per billion of a specific odorant by multiplying by the
odor threshold of each observer, which is the ratio of a known
dilution of a specific odorant to odorless air at which the
observer just detects the odor.
The sensitivity of the method is a function of the observer's odor
threshold and the lowest dilution of odorant to odorless air that
can be measured on the olfactometer. In order to sample the ambient
air adequately, daily observations were obtained during the period
from August 24 through September 4, 1970, excluding the weekend
of August 29-30. Two observers were exposed to the ambient air at
several sites in each of the three areas at half-hour intervals
during each day. The sampling sites, the method of sampling the
ambient air, and the instrumentation and technique of using the
olfactometer are described in detail elsewhere. The odor
threshold of each observer was measured twice a day.
Population Sampling
Preliminary scouting of the original three "exposure" areas suggested
that significant differences occurred in housing and type of
neighborhood, including population density. These differences
implied possible differences in level of income and other social
factors affecting health. It was not feasible to characterize
subareas with any degree of precision, but some stratification
160
-------
seemed advisable. Consequently, each "exposure" area was sub-
divided into three subareas, one characterized predominantly by
scattered rural housing, one by central town-type housing, and
one by suburban tract-type housing. The rural housing was defined
primarily on the basis of sparsity of settlement, but appeared to
represent a relatively large proportion of housing of poor
quality, frequently located on property which included farm out-
buildings and livestock. The suburban tract-type housing was on
the outskirts of town and was largely "California ranch" style.
The housing in the central areas tended to be more modest and was
located in the older, central part of town with a conventional
grid pattern of streets. The "exposure" areas will subsequently
be referred to as Areas I, II, and III, representing high, moderate,
and low exposure to pulp mill odor, and the subareas will be
designated as rural, central and tract.
The sampling frame was constructed for each subarea by listing all
houses which appeared to be occupied. For the personal interview
survey, houses unoccupied at the time of interview were replaced
by sampling randomly between the "interviewed" houses on either
side. For both the interview and postal survey, sampling was systema-
tic with an independent random start in each subarea. Alternate
households were designated to have a male or, female respondent inter-
viewed. If a household did not have a respondent of the designated
sex, one of the other adult members was substituted.
The personal interview survey was regarded as the main part of the
survey with respect to investigating the health effects of exposure
161
-------
to pulp mill odor. Therefore, this sample was selected first,
and the sample sizes were chosen so as to permit some comparisons
within residential subgroups as well as between totals for each
of the three areas. The sample for the postal survey was chosen
from the same initial sampling frame, excluding households included
in the personal interview sample. The sampling frame was not
large enough to permit carrying out the postal survey in Area I,
the area nearest the pulp mill, nor in the rural subarea of Area II.
In this report comparisons are made only between combinations of
comparable subareas. Thus, no comparisons are possible for Area I,
and comparisons are limited to central and tract subareas for Area I
but are made for rural, central, and tract subareas combined for
Area III. The lack of postal survey data for Area I is a serious
limitation of the study since this area represents the greatest
exposure to the odor. Also, the high sampling ratios in some subareas
may have been a disadvantage because of the possibility of bias resui'
from pre-interview discussion of the survey among prospective respon-
dents.
The total sample sizes, numbers of respondents, and numbers of
non-respondents by category are shown for both the personal
interview and the postal survey (Table 1).
Questionnaire Design
For both the personal interview and the postal survey, the question-
naire included information regarding date of birth, sex, marital
status, occupation and place of employment, length of residence
162
-------
in the area, pre-existing medJctiL conditions, .smoking habits, and
exposure to specific industrial hazards which might affect health.
The basic questions of the British Medical Research Council's
Questionnaire on Respiratory Symptoms (1966) were included as a
measure of chronic respiratory eifects. This was followed by thren
sets of questions concerning symptoms which it was believed might
be associated with exposure to pulp mill odor. The respondent was
first asked whether he had each of these symptoms frequently,
occasionally, or hardly ever. For each symptom experienced fre-
quently or occasionally, he was then asked whether there was any-
thing in particular which seems to bring it on, or whether he
had experienced it during the past two weeks. He was also asked
whether he had been sick at any time during the last two weeks,
j
and whether he would say that his health was excellent, good, fair,
or poor. It proved to be cumbersome and time-consuming in the
personal interview to ask this much detail for each symptom, but
no estimate existed of the frequency of these symptoms in the
general population, and we hoped to obtain adequate frequencies of
positive, responses to at least one set of questions to permit statisti-
cal testing of the results. It was also felt that the respondent
should be given an opportunity to attribute symptoms to the pulp
mill odor although both the interview and the postal questionnaire
were introduced to the respondent as general health surveys and no
references were made to pulp mill odor anywhere in either question-
naire. This has been found to be important in obtaining unbiased
results.
163
-------
Interviewing was carried out by two part-time and four full-time
interviewers, including two staff members who participated in
other aspects of the survey. Training began on the Wednesday
evening preceding the field work and continued through part of
the following Saturday. A preliminary description of the study
and run-through of the questionnaire and instructions was followed
by demonstration interviews by staff members and practice interviews
by staff members and trainees. Standard training tape recordings of
demonstration interviews of the MRC part of the questionnaire were
also used. The most intensive part of the training consisted of
one-to-one interviewing practice with members of the training staff,
followed by playback of tape recordings and group discussion. The
final phase of training included "real" interviews on members of a
community not being included in the survey proper. Completed
questionnaires were edited by staff members and discussed with
the trainees.
The initial plan required each interviewer to interview the same
proportion of respondents in each area, and to do about the same
proportion of interviews on each day in each area. The former
should have equalized interviewer differences so that they would
not appear as area differences; the latter was to insure that
increasing community awareness and discussion of the content of
the study would occur at the same rate in all areas. In practice,
it became increasingly difficult to maintain this schedule beyond
the first few days of interviewing.
164
-------
Each Interviewer was usually seen by a staff member at least once
a day for collecalon of completed interview schedules, assignment
of new interviews, and discussion of problems. Preliminary editing
of interview schedules was done on a current basis so that omissions
or errors could be corrected while field work was still in progress.
Postal Survey
From the total listing of all residences which comprised the original
sampling frame, a sample of 245 addresses.was selected for the
postal survey, as previously described. No addresses were included
Which had already been included in the personal interview survey.
In order to avoid addressing mail to "occupant", it was necessary
to obtain names of householders, and this proved to be one of the
most difficult aspects of. the survey. No telephone directory.by
street address existed for the area, nor was a postal guide by
street address available. Furthermore, postal service included
both delivery by street address and by rural route and box number.
In addition, some residents receive their mail through post office
boxes. The local municipal water department cooperated in pro-
viding names of persons receiving water bills for 146 of the
original 245 addresses, but these did not necessarily represent
occupants. The Anderson Post Office, through the excellent co-
operation of the Postmaster and the deliverymen, was able to
provide names for 135 of the original 245 addresses. The two
lists were checked against each other to eliminate duplicates and
subsequently combined into a single list. As additional verifi-
cation, these were checked against the local telephone directory.
165
-------
The result was a list of 202 names matched to addresses, leaving
A3 unmatched addresses.
The postal questionnaire was mailed to the 202 prospective respondents
on April 12, with a follow-up questionnaire mailed on April 22 to non-
respondents. On May 12, a final mailing was made by certified mail to
non-respondents. From the series of three mailings, completed question-
naires were received from 70.3 percent of the 202 prospective respondents.
Follow-up consisted of fourth and fifth mailings to the 43 non-respondents
and the 43 unknowns, addressed to "occupant" and sent, by necessity, by
fourth class mail. Completed questionnaires were received from 40.7
percent of these (Table 2)-
In summary, from the 245 addresses originally included in the sample,
completed questionnaires were received from 72.2 percent. The remaining
27.8 percent included refusals, vacant households, deceased respondents,
and unclaimed mail (mostly representing occupants who had moved) .
RESULTS
Several hypotheses comparing the postal and personal interview
surveys are of interest. The first concerns differences in
response rate and whether there is evidence of any bias. A second
hypothesis is whether the frequencies with which various symptoms
166
-------
are reported is the same or whether there is some consistent
relationship between frequencies reported by the two methods.
A third asks whether the same area differences are detected by
both methods.
Comparison of Response Rates
As expected, the response rates for the postal survey are considerably
lower than those for personal interview (72.2 compared to,97.2 percent
for both areas combined). However, at least some of this difference
is due to inclusion in the denominator of unclaimed mail (returned
by-the post office), and mail delivered to an address but not
reaching the respondent or resulting for any reason in "no reply".
The percent response for the postal survey based on a denominator
excluding vacant houses, unclaimed mail and deceased occupants is
82.3 percent, while the additional exclusion from the denominator
of "no replys" (but not explicit refusals) results in a response
rate of 97.8 percent. In any case, the response rates for both
areas are close.
Comparisons of Prevalence Reported by Personal Interview
and .Postal Questionnaire
Frequency with which Symptoms are Reported
Since the distributions of respondents by sex and area (cross-
classified) were very nearly the same for both personal interview
and postal questionnaire (Table 3), the comparison of results
obtained by each method was made for both sexes and areas
combined. For the percent reporting symptoms frequently, no
167
-------
statistically significant differences between the two methods
were found using x^ tests. For the percent reporting symptoms
frequently or occasionally, the following symptoms showed
significant differences between the two methods: nervousness,
headache, fatigue, sweating, sinus congestion, nose irritation,
runny nose, and chest pain. All of these symptoms showed a
larger percent reporting by postal questionnaire than upon
personal interview (Table A). Most differences which were
not statistically significant also occurred in this direction.
When examined separately by sex, however, only nervousness
and headache showed significant differences within both sexes.
Percents reporting runny nose and chest pain, although signi-
ficantly different for both sexes combined, were not signifi-
cant within either sex when considered separately. Conversely,
the percent reporting insomnia showed a significant difference
in men, and eye irritation showed a significant,difference in
women, but neither showed significant differences for both
sexes combined (Table 5).
MRC Symptoms
2
X tests were also carried out on the percents reporting
individual MRC symptoms to compare the postal and interview
surveys (Table 6). The questions on phlegm all received a
significantly larger percent of positive responses on the
postal questionnaire than on personal interview, as did the
question asking whether the respondents chest sounds wheezing
and whistling on most days or nights. It should be noted,
168
-------
however, that the questions on phlegm yielded the lowest
response rate, apparently due to ambiguity oJ the question-
naire format. The results, therefore, are based on only
about 85 percent of the total sample.
Percents giving positive responses to the MRC questions are
also shown by sex and area (Table 7).
Area Differences
Frequency with which Symptoms are Reported
One hypothesis of interest is whether area differences detected
by the postal survey consistently reflect those detected by
personaJ interview. To test this the signs of the area
differences in percents reporting symptoms (Area II minus
Area III) were determined separately by sex for personal
interview and for postal questionnaire (Tables 8 and 9). Con-
cordance was defined as agreement between the signs of the area
differences lor postal and interview results for a given sex
and symptom; discordance was defined as disagreement between
the signs. When no area difference occurred for either postal
survey or interview, the pair was omitted.
The null hypothesis implies that 50 percent of the differences
are concordant and 50 percent are discordant, which is the
expected distribution if no consistency is occurring in the
direction of area differences when all symptoms are considered
together.
169
-------
For percent of males reporting symptoms frequently, 8 out of
11 symptoms showed concordance in the sign of the area
differences, 3 out of 11 showed discordance (5 symptoms showed
no difference between areas for either the postal survey or
the personal interview or both); comparable results for
females were 8 out of 16 symptoms showing concordance and
8 out of 16 symptoms showing discordance. Comparable figures
for percents reporting symptoms frequently or occasionally
are 6 out of 10 symptoms showing concordance and 4 out of 10
symptoms showing discordance for males, and 9 out of 16 showing
concordance and 7 out of 16 showing discordance for females.
The only comparison approaching statistical significance was
the 8 out of 11 agreement for males reporting symptoms fre-
quently. For a one-tailed test of statistical significance
at the 5 percent level, agreement for 9 out of 11 symptoms
would have been required. This would have been achieved by
counting as "agreement" the symptom in which both postal and
personal interview results showed no area difference.
A more appropriate test might be considered to be a similar
one done only on those symptoms which showed statistically
significant area differences. However, only one such difference
occurred. This was for the percent reporting "runny nose"
frequently on the postal questionnaire (x2 - 8.45 with one
degree of freedom).
170
-------
Implicit in the hypothesis tested here is that if the postal.
and interview methods are to be accepted as equally valuable
in detecting area differences, a statistically significant pin-
portion of the symptoms must show area differences consistent
in direction by'both methods. It could be argued that if
postal and interview results give similar area differences on
some symptoms and not on others, then it is valid to use results
from either method for these symptoms, but that the other symptoms
are not suitable for survey use unless one is willing to accept
either the interview or the postal methods as the "reference"
method. For example, if from other evidence one decides that
the interview method is valid (perhaps based on comparisons
with other medical data on the respondents), then obtaining
an area difference on the postal survey which differs in
direction from the area difference obtained by interview
suggests that the postal survey is not an adequate replacement
for interview. Again, one may wish to limit the comparisons
to statistically significant differences which are also large
enough to be relevant to the goals of the study.
MRC Symptoms
Area differences in the prevalence of MRC symptoms were also
compared for postal survey and personal interview (Table 10).
Neither type of survey gave significant area differences for
any of the MRC symptoms examined. The non-significant area
differences showed the same direction for both surveys for
some symptoms, but not for others.
171
-------
Environmental Measurements
Three indices of odor as measured by dynamic olfactometry are
presented. These are the percent measurable detections, the
concentration at the 90th percentile, and the maximum odor
concentration detected (Tables 11-13). Area I, which could
not be used in the comparisons presented here, obviously has
a greater exposure to odor than the other areas. The distinction
between Areas II and III are less obvious, and the limitation of
the postal-interview comparison to these areas represents a
deficiency in the study when making area comparisons.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The lower response rate to the postal questionnaire when compared
with personal interview is to be expected for two reasons; first,
the initial sample was selected by address and corresponding
names were obtained from several sources which were not necessarily
accurate, and questionnaires to the remaining addresses had to be
sent to "occupant" by fourth class mail; second, non-response may
be accomplished merely by ignoring the mailed questionnaire in
contrast to explicit face-to-face refusal in the case of the
personal interview. Considering the difficulties encountered in
obtaining names of householders in the sample, the response rate
appears to be reasonably satisfactory. In terms of area differences
in reported frequency of symptoms, the occurrence of similar response
rates in both areas suggests lack of bias in this respect.
172
-------
In comparing results of the postal survey and personal interview,
tho higher percents of positive? responses in the postal questionnaire.
could result partly from the under-representation of individuals
reluctant to respond because they had few or no symptoms. These
individuals would ordinarily be picked up in personal interview.
It has been found in other studies that a higher frequency of
reporting of "personal" information may be obtained by postal survey
than on personal interview. The symptoms showing higher frequencies
in the postal survey were nervousness, headache, fatigue, sweating,
sinus congestion, nose irritation, runny nose, and chest pain; and
of the MRC-symptoms, phlegm and chest sounding wheezing or whistling.
The attempt to test whether the same area differences in symptom
frequencies would be detected by both postal survey and personal
interview was unsuccessful because no significant area differences
occurred by either method, This may be a reflection of the
relatively small difference between the two:areas with respect to
exposure to odor. It was unfortunate that Area I, which had
significantly greater exposure to odor than Areas II and III, was
too small to be included in the postal survey.
173
-------
Table ]
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
POSTAL SURVEY AND PERSONAL INTERVIEW
ANDERSON, 1970-1971
Total Initial Sample
Respondents
Percent
Refusals
Vacant House
Total Initial Sample
Respondents
Percent
Refusals (returned
questionnaire but
refused to answer)
No Reply (mail undelivered
or refused)
Deceased
Mail Unclaimed
(returned by post office)
Vacant House
PERSONAL INTERVIEW
Total
254
247
97.2
6
1
Area 11
102
95
93.1
6
1
Area III
152
152
100.0
0
0
POSTAL SURVEY
Total
245
177
72.2
4
34
1
24
5
Area II
93
67
72.0
1
17
1
6
1
Area III
152
110
72.4
3
17
0
18
4
174
-------
Table 2
SUMMARY OF MAILINGS AND RESPONSES
POSTAL SURVEY
ANDERSON, 1971
First Mulling
April 1 2 "
(First Class)
Suuuiid M. iilnii;
April 22
(First Class)
Third Mailing
May 12
(Cert i lied)
Fourth Mailing
May 28
(Fnurth Class)
Filth Mailing
June IH
(Futirth Class)
TOTAL
Mailed
Number
202
114 .
84
86
46
Questionnaires
Returned
Number
74
38
30
25
10
Percent
36.6
33.3
35.7
29.1
21.7
AREA II
Mailed
Number
83
42
37
32a
21
Questionnaires
Returned
Number
30
15
14
5
3
Percent
36.1
35.7
37.8
15.6
14.3
AREA 111
Mailed
Number
119
72
'47
54b
25
Questionnaires
Returned
Number
44
23
16
20
7
Percent
}~.()
3 1 .y
34 .0
37.0
28.0
'' Includes 10 c|iiestioniuiires not Sent first three mailings because of
lack of name lor the given address.
b Includes 33 questionnaires not sent per footnote a.
175
-------
Table 3
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS BY SEX AND AREA
POSTAL SURVEY AND PERSONAL INTERVIEW
ANDERSON, 1970-1971
Number of Respondents
Percents
Male, total
Area II
Area III
Female, total
Area 11
Area III
POSTAL SURVEY
177
100.0
37.8
14.1
23.7
62.2
27.7
34.5
PERSONAL INTERVIEW
247
100.0
42.5
17.4
25.1
57.5
21.1
36.4
176
-------
Til Me 4
COMPARISON OF POSTAL SURVEY AND PERSONAL INTERVIEW
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS
"FREQUENTLY" OR "FREQUENTLY AND OCCASIONALLY"
ANDERSON, 1970-1971
SYMPTOM
Number of Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Insomnia
Fatique
Palpitations
Diz/iness
Nausea
Vomiting
Sweating
Sinus Congestion
Eye irritation
Shortness of Breath
Nose Irritation
Runny Nose
Chest Pain
Cough
FREQUENTLY
X2
2.85
1.43
2.41
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
2.59
0.00
0.06
1 .38
Postal
167a
19.8
10.8
6.0
15.0
2:4
2,4
1.8
0.6
9.0
1 3.2
3.6
7.2
4.2
6.6
4.2
7.2
Interview
247
27.5
15.4
10.9
15.0
2.8
3.2
2.4
0.4
9.3
13.8
4.0
6.9
1.2
6.1
3.2
4.0
FREQUENTLY OR
OCCASIONALLY
X2
1 1.33' '
10.521'
1.31
10.01 + *
0.25
0.01
3.31
0.69
14.16' >
5.80'
2.61
0.37
12.46'H
4.55'
5.27*
1.80
Postal
167a
64.7
50.9
31.1
53.9
12.0
17.4
13.2
5.4
33.5
46.7
24.0
21.6
15.6
33.5
18.0
28.1
Interview
247
47.4
34.4
25.5
37.7
14.2
18.2
7.3
3.2
17.0
34.4
17.0
18.6
4.9
23.5
9.7
21.9
Note:
Excludes I 0 questionnaires ret nrned in which tiiese questions were not answered.
Significant at 5% level.
Significant at 1% level.
X2 with one degree of freedom comparing postal survey and
personal interview.
177
-------
Table 5
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS
"FREQUENTLY OR OCCASIONALLY" BY SEX
POSTAL SURVEY AND PERSONAL INTERVIEW
ANDERSON, 1970-1971
Number of Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Insomnia
Fatiquc
Palpitations
Dizziness
Nausea
Vomiting
Sweating
Sinus Congestion
Eye Irritation
Shortness of Breath
Nose Irritation
Runny Nose
Chest Pain
Cough
MALE
X2
5.24*
4.16*
4.87*
6.35*
0.06
0.11
0.23
0.04
11.52* +
0.38
0.01
0.08
1.04
0.94
0.38
0.01
Postal
69a
47.8
40.6
30.4
42.0
8.7
8.7
4.3
0.0
39.1
39.1
14.5
11.6
8.7
27.5
11.6
24.6
Interview
105
29.5
24.8
15.2
22.9
8.6
11.4
1.9
k 1.0
15.2
33.3
15.2
14.3
3.8
20.0
7.6
22.9
FEMALE
X2
5.99*
5.76*
0.01
3.82
0.42
0.01
2.45
1.07
3.56
6.07*
4.24*
1.08
10.89*'
3.19
0.21
2.30
Postal
98a
76,5
58.2
31.6
62.2
14.3
23.5
19.4
9.2
29.6
52.0
30.6
28.6
20.4
37.8
22.4
30.6
Interview
142
60.6
41.5
33.1
48.6
18.3
23.2
11.3
4.9
18.3
35.2
18.3
21,8
5.6
26.1
11.3
21.1
Note:
Excludes 1 0 questionnaires returned in which these questions were not answered.
Significant at the 5% level.
Significant at the 1% level.
X^ with one degree of freedom comparing postal survey and
personal interview.
178
-------
Table 6
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING MRC SYMPTOMS
POSTAL SURVEY AND PERSONAL INTERVIEW
(Based on number answering each question.)
ANDERSON, 1970-1971
SYMPTOM
Number of Respondents
Morning Cough
Day or Night Cough
Cough Most Days Last Three Months
Cough Grade 1 or 2
Cough Grade 2
Morning Phlegm
Day or Night Phlegm
Phlegm Most Days Last Three Months
Period of Increased Cough and Phlegm
Lasting Three Weeks or More
Once during last three years
Twice during last three years
Shortness of Breath
Walking at. an ordinary pace
Walking at own pace
Breath Wheezing or Whistling Most Days
Attacks of Shortness of Breath or
Wheczing-Normal Between
Stuffy Nose Most Days Last Three Months
Chest Illness Past Three Years
Once only
Twice or moi c
X2
2.20
0.38
0.31
0.24
0.88
6.15*
6.95+ *
8.48*
0.80
2.30
0.85
0.19
4.88*
0.53
1.62
0.18
0.4(>
POSTAL
150-
177
15.4
13.1
11.4
11.6
7.6
17.3 '
19.5
19.5
4.3
9.1
29.2
11.1
11.1
7.6
°2 9
3.5
4.1
INTERVIEW
247
10.1
15.8
13.8
13.8
4.9
8.5
').?
9.7
6.9
4.9
34.0
9.3
4.9
10.1
17.4
4.9
2.4
Note:
Significant at-the 5% level.
Significant at the 1% level.
X- with one degree of freedom comparing postal survey with
personal interview.
179
-------
Table 7
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING MRC SYMPTOMS
BY SEX AND AREA
POSTAL SURVEY VS PERSONAL INTERVIEW
(Based on number answering each question.)
ANDERSON, 1970-1971
SYMPTOM
Number of Respondents
Morning Cough
Day or Night Cough
Cough Most Days Last Three Months
Cough Grade 1 or 2
Cough Grade 2
Morning Phlegm
Day or Night Phlegm
Phlegm Most Days Last Three Months
Period of Increased Cough and Phlegm
Lasting Three Weeks or More
Once during last three years
Twice during last three years
Shortness of Breath
Walking at an ordinary pace
Walking at own pace
Breath Wheezing or Whistling Most Days
Attacks of Shortness of Breath or
Wheezing Normal Between
Stuffy Nose Most Days Last Three Months
Chest Illness Past Three Years
Once only
Twice or more
MALE
Postal
Area II
18-25
16.0
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.2
22.2
21.1
21.1
4.2
8.3
28.0
0.0
16.0
0.0
12.5
0.0
4.2
Area III
42-49
16.3
8.5
10.2
10.6
6.4
16.7
21.4
18.6
4.3
2.2
18.8
2.1
10.4
2.1
14.9
2.1
0.0
Interview
Area 11
43
11.6
30.2
25.6
25.6
9.3
14.0
16.3
18.6
4.7
4.7
27.9
18.6
7.0
14.0
20.9
7.0
0.0
Area 111
62
8.1
14.5
12.9
12.9
4.8
9.7
14.5
9.7
4.8
8.1
22.6
6.5
4.8
9.7
25.6
3.2
7.1
FEMALE
Postal
Area 11
37-42
16.7
19.0
16.7
16.7
11.9
16.2
20.5
23.7
2.9
20.0
40.5
21.6
12.8
10.0
35.0
7.7
7.7
Area HI
53-61
13.6
16.4
11.7
11.9
6.8
17.0
16.7
16.7
5.1
8.5
31.1
16.4
13.6
13.3
24.6
3.3
5.0
Interview.
Area 11
52
11.5
11.5
13.5
13.5
3.8
3,8
1.9
1.9
15.4
1.9
40.4
5.8
1.9
0.0
21.2
3.8
1.9
(Area III
90
10-0
12.2
: 8.9
. 8.9
3.3
; 7.8
; 7.8
7.8
4.4
4.4
41.1
8.9
5.6 :
4.4
23.1
5.6
3.3
180
-------
Table 8
PERCENT or RESPONDENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS
FREQUENTLY OR OCCASIONALLY" BY AREA AND SEX
BY POSTAL SURVEY AND PERSONAL INTERVIEW
ANDERSON, 1970- 1971
SYMPTOM
umb or n( Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Insomnia
Fatigue
Palpitations
Di/./iiiess
Nausea
Vomiting
Sweating
Sinus Congestion
Eye Irritation
Shortness of Breath
Nose Irritation
Runny Nose
Chest Pain
Cough '
MALE
Postal
Area II
23:i
47.8
47,8
30.4
47.8
8.7
13.0
13.0
0.0
52.2
39.1
21.7
13.0
8.7
39.1
8.7
30. -1
Area 111
4
-------
Table 9
AREA DIFFERENCES IN PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS
"FREQUENTLY" AND "FREQUENTLY OR OCCASIONALLY" BY SEX
POSTAL SURVEY AND PERSONAL INTERVIEW
(Area II - Area III)
ANDERSON, 1970
Number of Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Insomnia
Fatique
Palpitations
Dizziness
Nausea
Vomiting
Sweating
Sinus Congestion
Eye Irritation
Shortness of Breath
Nose Irritation
Runny Nose
Chest Pain
Cough
FREQUENTLY
Male
Postal
-4.4
+10.8
+2.1
-8.7
0
0
0
0
+2.1
-6.5
+13.0
0
-4.3
+4.4
+4.3
-4.3
Inter-
view
+1.1
+4.5
+3.8
-2.7
-1.6
-3.2
-1.6
0
-0.4
0.5
+0.7
+4.5
+0.7
+1.5
+1.5
-2.5
Female
Postal
+6.6
-3.0
-5.3
-5.7
+1.6
-2.7
-5.2
-1.7
+0.6
+2.9
-0.9
+1.4
+4.1
+17.5
+2.3
+8.1
Inter-
view
-5.4
+8.0
-6.3
-3.8
-0.6
+2.5
+0.5
-1.1
+0.7
+9.2
+0.2
+1.0
+1.9
+9.1
-1.4
-0.6
FREQUENTLY
OR OCCASIONALLY
Male
Postal
0
+11.8
0
+8.7
0
+6.5
+13.0
0
+19.6
0
+10.8
+2.1
0
+17.4
-4.3
+8.7
Inter-
view
+16.9
+5.3
+5.7
-3.3
+5.1
+0.3
-3.2
+2.3
-2.1
-1.3
+5.7,
+3.4
+5.4
2.4
-1.1
+4.6
Female
Postal
-2.6
-9.6
-7.0
+0.4
+9.7
+6.8
+9.5
+5.6
+4.9
+17.7
+11.6
+6.6
+12.0
+12.2
+8.5
+15.9
Inter-
view
+4.6
+16.3
-0.6
-0.8
-10.7
-0.75
+3.5
-4.8
+1.4
+2.1
+1.4
-1.0
+3.3
+10.5
+3.5
+3.1
182
-------
T.I Me 10
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING MRC SYMPTOMS BY AREA
POSTAL SURVEY AND PERSONAL INTERVIEW
(Based on number answering each question)
ANDERSON. 1070- 197 1
SYMPTOM
Number of Respondents
Morning Cough
Dav or Night Cough
Cough Most Days List Three Months
Cough Grade 1 or 2
Cough Grade 2
Mormnu, Phlegm
Day or Night Phlegm
Phlegm Most Days Last Three Months
Period of Increased Cough and Phlegm
Lasting Three Weeks or More
Once during last three years
Twice during. last three years
Shortness of Breath
Walking at an ordinars pace
Walking at own pace
Breath Whee/iim; or Whistling Most 'Days
Attacks of Shortness of Breath or
Whee/ing, Normal Between
Stnlly Nose Most Days Last Three Months.
Chest Illness With Phlegm Past Three Years
Once onl v
Twice or more
POSTAL SURVEY
(O
0.00
0,02
0.00
0.01
0.09
0.00
0.01
0.35
0.00
3.07
1.39
0.10
1.44
0.04
0.56
0.06
0.54
Area 1 1
55-67
16.4
i 3.4
12.1
12. 1
9.1
1.S.2
20.7
22,8
3.4
15.3
35.5
12.9
15.6
6.2
26.6
4.8
6.3
Area 111
95-1 10
1-1.8
13.0
11.0
1 1.3
6.6
16.8
18.8
17.5
4.8
5.7
25.7
10.1
8.4
8.3
20.4
2.8
2.8
PERSONAL INTERVIEW.
X2
0.15
1.58
2.82
0.08
0.22
0.00
0.10
0.00
2.34
0.46
0.00
0.55
0.00
0.15
1.04
0.00
0.47
Area 11
95
1 1.6
20.0
18.9
18.V
(>.}
8.4
8.4
9.5
10.5
3.2
34.7
1 1.6
4.2
! !.(>
21.1
5.3
1.1
Area 11!
152
9.2
13.2
10.5
25.X
27.3
7.3
10.5
8.6
4.6
5.9
33.6
7.9
5.3
9.2
15.1
4.6
3.3
Note: \- with one degree of freedom comparing postal survey and personal interview.
183
-------
Table 11
PERCENT MEASURABLE ODOR DETECTIONS
(ODOR FREQUENCY)
ANDERSON, 1970
TIME
1300-1329
1330-1359
1400-1429
1430-1459
1500-1529
1530-1559
1600-1629
1630-1659
1700-1729
1730-1759
1800-1829
1830-1859
1900-1929
1930-1959
2000-2029
2030-2059
2100-2129
21 30- -21 59
Overall
AREA 1
50.0
41.7
37.5
58.3
75.0
75.0
41.7
58.3
12.5
75.0
58.3
87.5
58.3
75.0
50.0
83.3
58.3
62.5
59.4
AREA II
22.2
50.0
22.2
22.2
11.1
11.1
5.6
50.0
0.0
5.6
0.0
0.0
44.4
0.0
38.9
22.2
0.0
0.0
17.0
AREA III
0.0
20.8
25.0
12.5
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0
4.2
0.0
8.3
12.5
37.5
12.5
25.0
6.3
4.2
0.0
9.6
Total number of malodor detections
(Overall frequency , x 100)
Total number of measurements
184
-------
Table 1 2
DIURNAL MALODOR CONCENTRATION AT
90th PERCENT!LE
BY AREA AND TIME
(as ppb CH3SH)
ANDERSON, ] 970
1300
1330
1400
1430
1500
1530
1000
1 6 30
1700
1730
IS 00
IK 30
1 900
l')30
2UOO
2030
2 1 00
2130
AREA I
29.0
11.4
17.5
1 1.6
15.3
151.3
1 6.4
31.5
N.D.
15.0
58.3
1 15.8
12.6
401.3
17.3
54.0
31.6
1 1.5
AREA 11
6.2
5.3
4.8
5.7
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
5.3
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
4.1
N.D.
10.1
4.4
N.D.
N.D.
AREA 111
N.D.
13.7
6.2
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
55.0
N.D.
4.0
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D. None detected.
185
-------
Table 13
MAXIMUM ODOR CONCENTRATION DETECTED
BY AREA AND TIME
(AS ppb CH3 SH)
ANDERSON, 1970
TIME
1300-1329
1330-1359
1400-1429
1430-1459
1500-1529
1530-1559
1600-1629
1630-1659
1700-1729
1730-1759
1800-1829
1830-1859
1900-1929
1930-1959
2000-2029
2030-2059
2100-2129
2130-2159
AREA I
58.0
14.8
39.5
55.0
49.0
266.2
46.6
72.4
17.6
19.0
216.8
384.5
19.1
1,681.4
33.7
67.6
43.8
16.6
AREA II
7.2
5.8
15.6
8.0
N.D.
81.0
13.6
8.2
N.D.
2.8
N.D.
N.D.
5.9
N.D.
19.4
4.9
N.D.
N.D.
AREA III
N.D.
34.4
15.5
4.2
N.D.
N.D.
2.7
N.D.
6.5
N.D.
3.2
3.7
7.5.7
22.6
6.0
6.6
27.2
N.D.
ALL AREAS
58.0
34.4
39.5
55.0
49.0
266.2
46.6
72.4
17.6
19.0
216.8
384.5
75.7
1,681.4
33.7
67.6
43.8
16.6
186
-------
Figure I
N
Shasta
lyistrict
i4irj?rour
.S-3
P J,
/
AREA III
P2
ARE;A n
Indicates sampling sites
for dynamic olfactory
P-l
Kimberly
Clark
AREA I
Plant
P-1
P2
/
-a
187
-------
REFERENCES
1. Sanders GR, Umbraco RA: Anderson study; olfactometry of Kimberly-
Clark pulp mill emissions. AIHL Report No. 96. California State
Department of Public Health (in manuscript). March 1971
2. Johnson E, Deane M, Sanders G: Community reactions to odors
from pulp mills: A pilot study in Eureka, California. California
State Department of Public Health (in manuscript), 1972
3. Deane M, Goldsmith JR: Health effects of pulp mill odor in
Anderson, California. California State Department of Public
Health (in manuscript), 1973
4. Sanders GR, Umbraco RA, Twiss S, Mueller PK: The measurement of
malodor in a community by dynamic olfactometry. AIHL Report
No. 86, California State Department of Public Health, Berkeley,
1970
5. AIHL Recommended Method 26-A, Measurement of odor concentration
by dynamic olfactometry. California State Department of Public
Health, Berkeley
6. Medical Research Council's Committee on the Aetiology of Chronic
Bronchitis. Brit Med J, 11:1655, 1960
7. Jonsson E: Om olika metoder for studier ar yttre miljofaktorers
storande effekt. Nord Psykol, 14:270-288, 1962
188
-------
SECTION VI-F
ANNOYANCE AND HEALTH REACTIONS TO ODOR FROM REFINERIES
AND OTHER INDUSTRIES IN CARSON, CALIFORNIA
1972
INTRODUCTION
Several studies previously conducted in California and elsewhere on the
effects of odor from industrial sources have demonstrated that annoyance
reactions, as measured by personal interviews, are related both to pre-
sumptive exposure to odor, as estimated from location, and to systematic
measurements of exposure made by dynamic olfactometry. The sources
of odors in the California studies were pulp and paper mills situated
close to residential communities aiid, therefore, represented one or two
4 5
point sources in each community. ' This paper is a report of the effects
of community exposure to multiple sources of odor associated with petro-
leum refineries and other components of the petrochemical industry. In
addition, the study area is exposed to a general background of odor asso-
ciated with Los Angeles air pollution, including automobile exhaust.
The specific purpose of the study in Carson was to estimate the annoyanrc
reactions and possible health effects of exposure to odor in this community
and to determine whether annoyance and health reactions are related to
measurements made by dynamic olfactometry as previously reported in the
pulp mill studies. The general background and rationale behind community
4 5
odor studies has been described in more detail in previous studies. '
189
-------
METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS
Distinguishing Features of the Carson Study
As mentioned above, although the basic methodology of the study was the
same as that used in the studies of the effects of pulp mill odor, the
situation being studied differed in several respects. These are summarized
as follows:
1. Several refineries and petrochemical plants are located in the
immediate vicinity of the study area as well as in the general
region.
2. A background of Los Angeles smog exists, including odorous auto-
mobile exhaust.
3. The odorous emissions of the refineries tend to be sporadic.
4. The odor appears to be neither as pervasive nor as objectionable
as the odor from pulp mills.
Sampling
As in the pulp mill odor studies, three residential areas were chosen that
were presumed to have different exposures to the odors from the refineries
and petrochemical plants on the basis of location with respect to the
190-
-------
plants and the prevailing winds. The relative location of the principal
sources of odor in the three areas is shown in Figure 1. The areas were
selected on the basis of similar housing type and quality, which suggested
that the areas were of comparable socio-economic status.
About 100 households were chosen in each of the areas by systematic random
sampling. This represents about twice the number of households used in the
pulp mill studies; it was hoped that the augmentation of the sample size
would enable the Investigators to detect meaningful statistically sig-
nificant differences in the prevalence of infrequently reported symptoms
as well as permit analysis separately by sex for those symptoms which
exhibit significant differences in frequency in men and women. The initial
samples were designed to include approximately equal numbers of men and
women in each area. It was determined randomly whether a man or a woman,
usually the head of household or his spouse, was to be interviewed in each
'household, but if an adult of the designated sex was not living in the
household, any adult living there was interviewed. The final sex distri-
bution of the respondents, therefore, should represent the population distri-
bution by .sex within each area.
The sample six.es, the distribution by sex, and the proportion of interviews
successfully completed are shown in Table 1. The original samples were
augmented to replace unoccupied households. The sample sizes include these
and represent the total numbers of houses approached. The nonrespondi'nts
represent a totaJ of five households in which the respondent refused to be
interviewed after repeated attempts and four additional households in which
it was not possible Lo contact the respondent at oil.
191
-------
Exposure Data
The exposure to odor in the three areas was estimated by dynamic olfactometry.
The measurements are based on the "odor dilution factor" which is the ratio
of ambient air (air to which the community is exposed) to odorless air at
which a trained observer just detects odor. This is converted to the equiva
lent of parts per billion of a specific odorant by multiplying by the odor
threshold of each observer, which is the ratio of known dilution of a specific
odorant to odorless air at which the observer just detects the odor.
The sensitivity of the method is a function of the observer's odor threshold
and the lowest dilution of odorant to odorless air that can be measured on
the olfactometer. In order to sample the ambient air adequately, daily
observations were obtained during a two-week period in March. Observations
were taken by two observers at several sites in each of the three areas at
half hour intervals between 8 a.m. and midnight. The sampling sites, the
method of sampling the ambient air, and the instrumentation and technique of
using the olfactometer are described in detail elsewhere.7' The odor thres-
hold of each observer was measured twice a day, at the beginning and end of
each shift. Two shifts per day were used, from 0800 to 1500 and from 1500
to 2400, respectively, with a relief observer to serve during the lunch and
dinner hours.
Questionnaire and Interviewing
The questionnaire was similar to that used in the second pulp mill odor
study in Eureka, California , with suitable modifications made to replace
192
-------
references to pulp mill odor with references to odors from industry. The
first section deals with such background data as age, occupation and
family structure; the second section with satisfaction with general con-
ditions in the residential area and the community; and the third section
with air pollution and noise problems in the area. The questions designed
to measure annoyance to odor from industries occur in the fourth section.
Questions were not asked specifically about odors from refineries or the
petrochemical industry because it was felt that respondents could not
distinguish the type of industrial odor with sufficient reliability. This
marks a departure from the design of this section of the questionnaire as
originally used in the pulp mill odor studies, in which the respondent was
first asked about reactions to industrial odor in general, and if pulp mill
odor was not mentioned voluntarily, was then asked specifically abouL reactions
to pulp mill odor. The fifth section of the questionnaire consists of question
designed to measure attitudes toward pollution and noise problems in general.
The sixth section consists of questions on cough, phlegm, and shortness of
breath from the British Medical Research Council's (MRC) questionnaire on
9
respiratory symptoms. The final section contains a list of symptoms which
the respondent is asked to specify as being experienced "frequently",
"occasionally", or "hardly ever". No specific reference to odor or air
pollution was made in asking the health questions. The average time required
for interviewing was between 15 and 20 minutes. The interviewing was carried
out during March and April 1972.
A training period of two to three days at the beginning of the field work
included detailed explanation and discussion of each item in the question-
naire and the method of recording responses as well as practice in using the
193
-------
questionnaire by means of role playing. The practice interviews were re-
corded on tape and replayed for correction of errors and discussion of
interviewing technique. This was followed by actual practice field inter-
views which were edited for omissions, inconsistencies, and errors in
recording responses. Similar editing was done during the survey itself so
that errors could be corrected while the field work was still in progress
and interviewer performance could be evaluated and modified if necessary.
The interview was introduced to the respondents as part of a survey on
health as well as on how people feel about the community in which they
live. In order to mask the principal aim of this study, community odor or
air pollution problems were not mentioned in the introduction. This is
important in obtaining unbiased results.
Statistical Analysis
The basic hypotheses being tested are that area trends exist in the
annoyance and health reactions, with Area I having the highest percent
of respondents reporting reactions and Area III the lowest. The test
used is the x2 for trend test described by Armitage. In this application,
an assumption of linearity of trend is made, and equally-spaced scores are
chosen to represent each area. In addition to testing the statistical sig-
nificance of the trend, one may also test for departure from trend by
comparing the x2 for trend with the total 2x3 x2«
Other tests which could have been used to test for significant area
differences include the usual total 2x3 x2» and pairwise testing of area
194
-------
differences using 2x2 x2 (Area I vs. Area II, Area T vs. Area III, ,-md
Area II vs. Area III). The latter method would have altered the level
of significance in a manner similar to that encountered in multiple
t-tests. The total 2x3 x2 test would not have given appropriate weight
to consistencies in the direction of trend (Area I > Area II > Area III).
RESULTS OF ANNOYANCE SURVEY
The results of the annoyance survey are presented here in a format similar
to that used in the reports for the results of the pulp mill surveys and can
be classified into four main categories:
1. Perception of the exposure situation.
2. Annoyance reactions.
3. Implications of the annoyance reactions.
4. Relevance of the background variables to annoyance reactions.
Detailed descriptions of the responses tabulated on each table are given
in the Appendix.
1. Perception of the Exposure Situation
The frequency with which odor was reported as being noticed is used as n
measure of the perception of the community exposure to odor. This i.s
195-
-------
shown in Table 2 and is tabulated from responses to questions asking
whether the respondent has noticed the odor from industry during the last
three months and, if so, how often it was noticed. Area I represents the
greatest presumptive exposure to the odorj Area III the least exposure.
The percents of respondents noticing the odor every day were 21 percent
in Area I (20 out of 97), 15 percent in Area II (14 out of 95), and 4
percent in Area III (4 out of 99) . The corresponding percents of respon-
dents noticing the odor- at least once a week (including "every day") were
50 percent, 51 percent and 16 percent while the percent of respondents who
reported that they did not notice the odor at all were 12 percent in Area I,
13 percent in Area II, and 54 percent in Area III. These differences were
statistically significant at the one percent level using x2 tests for trend.
However, the differences between Areas I and II in the percents noticing
the odor at least once a week and not at all are negligible when compared
with the corresponding percents in Area. III. This is reflected in the
significant x2's for departure from trend for these categories.
2. Annoyance Reactions
Significant area trends are also seen with respect to the percent of
respondents who reported being very much bothered by the odor and the
percent very much or moderately bothered combined, but the departure from
trend for the latter category is also significant, again reflecting the
lack of difference between Areas I and II in this combined category
(Table 3).
The response "not noticed or not bothered at all" was given by 12 percent
in Area I (12 out of 97), 17 percent in Area II (16 out of 95), and 59
196
-------
percent in Area III (58 out of 99), which also represents a significant
trend.
Respondents who were bothered by the odor were also asked how often they
were bothered. Of this group, in Area I, 31 percent (18 out of 59) were
bothered "often" (at least several times a week), in Area IT, 21 percent
(12 out of 57) gave this response and in Area III, 13 percent (3 out of 24).
Neither these differences nor those obtained by combining the "often" and
"occasionally" categories show a statistically significant area trend.
However, the corresponding trends based on the total numbers of responses
in each area are significant (Table 4).
Those who reported being very much or moderately bothered were asked
whether they thought the situation with regard to the odor was better
or worse compared with the previous year. As shown on Table 5, about 80
percent of these respondents in each area thought there had been no change
or answered "don't know". The 15 respondents who felt the situation was
better in 1972 were about evenly divided between those who felt that the
situation was better-and those who thought it might have been because they
had become used to it. All but 2 of the 14 individuals who thought the odor
was worse in 1972 felt that this was because there was more odor rather
than that they had become more sensitive to it. No statistically significant
area trends were noted.
3. Implication of the Annoyance Reactions
The implications of the annoyance reactions were examined by measuring the
degree of spontaneity with which the odor was mentioned and how likely the
197-
-------
respondent was to try and change his exposure to odor. Respondents were
given an opportunity to mention the odors from industry spontaneously.
that is, in response to questions that did not deal specifically with air
pollution or industrial odor. These included questions on what the respondent
considered advantages and disadvantages of living in the area, whether they
had considered moving, and whether they felt there was anything harmful in the
community. They were also given the opportunity to make a probed response,
that is, to give a positive answer to direct questions concerning whether
they had noticed and were bothered by odors from industry. These two types
of response are used as indicators of the saliency of the problem to the
respondent. Significant area trends are seen in Table 6, indicating that
individuals who noticed the odor in Areas I and II were more apt to mention
the odor spontaneously than were similar individuals in Area III. This rela-
tionship holds among those who reported being only a little or not at all
bothered by the odor (although noticing it) as well as among those who were
very much or moderately bothered. No significant relationship was found
between the degree to which the respondent was bothered and whether he men<-
tioned the odor spontaneously or in response to direct questioning.
Respondents were also asked whether they had ever thought of requesting or
had actually requested some authority or agency to take action concerning
any of the community problems they had designated as "serious" or "some-
what serious". Positive responses mentioning community odor were tabulated
as well as positive responses to an open-ended question in which the respon-
dent gave odor as a reason for having felt like moving away from the community
Table 7 shows that action was taken by 7 of the 151 respondents who were
a little or not at all bothered, but by 25 of the 140 respondents who were
- 198-
-------
very much or moderately bothered. Among those who were very much or
moderately bothered, the residents of Areas I and II were more apt to take
action than were those of Area Til;- "Action" regarding the odor is regarded
as a measure of the respondent's tolerance toward the problem.
4. Relevance of the Background Variables to Annoyance Reactions
To test the possible area effect of differences in background variables on
annoyance reactions, two-by-two tables were constructed comparing ri'sponsor;
on each of the variables with the degree to which the respondent was
bothered by industrial odors, and x tests with one degree of freedom
were carried out. Detailed descriptions of the variables can be found bv
referring to the Appendix. Table 8 shows that significant x' (starred)
were obtained for general attitude toward odor, estimation of the odor
problem in Carson, and the respondent's opinion regarding attitude of
authorities toward air pollution. These variables are at least as
likely to be. a result of the individual's exposure to and reactions to odor
in the community as to other characteristics which might bias the results.
This is not necessarily true for "general attitude toward noise", which was.
also significantly related to the degree to which the respondent was
bothered by the odor. However, an examination of area differences with
respect to this variable, suggests that it was not a biasing factor, since
^- tests were not significant at the 5% level (4.75 on two degrees of freedom
for total, 0.99 on one degree of freedom for trend). The percents reporting
that they think noise in general is annoying are as follows: Area T, 45 per-
cent; Area II, 61 percent; and Area III, 53 percent.
199-
-------
RESULTS OF HEALTH SURVEY
The health questionnaire is divided into two parts. One part consists of
questions on cough, phlegm, and shortness of breatt, taken verbatim from
the British Medical Research Councils (MRC) questionnaire on respiratory
symptoms. The other part consists of a list of symptoms which respondents
were asked to characterize as being experienced "frequently", "occasion-
ally", or "hardly ever". In addition, the respondents were asked whether
they had been sick, visited a doctor, or been in a hospital as a patient
within the two weeks preceeding the interview.
The results of the questions concerning health are summarized in Tables 9
through 14. There were obvious differences in the percents of men and
women reporting the various symptoms frequently or occasionally (Table 10).
In at least one area, significantly greater percents of women reported
nervousness; headache; dizziness, nausea, or vomiting; constipation; burning
or irritation of the nose; and runny nose; but the differences were not all
significant in each of the areas in which the study was carried out. Women
also reported Grade 2 or greater shortness of breath significantly more
frequently than men in one area. Cough Grade 2 was more frequent among men,
but this result occurred only in one area and is based on small expected
values. The following analysis is done separately for men and women where
the number of observations permit.
X2 tests for area trend were done both for percent of respondents who
reported symptoms frequently or occasionally and for percent reporting
symptoms only frequently. They were done separately for the respondents
200
-------
who reported being very much or moderately bothered by the odor and those
who reported being a little or not at all bothered.
The percent of respondents reporting that they experienced symptoms
"frequently" and "frequently or occasionally" are shown by area for both
sexes combined in Table 9. Considerable variation between areas was noted
for some symptoms; however, only one symptom was found to show a statisti-
cally significant area trend. This was chest pain, which, when tested for
those who reported being bothered either frequently or occasionally showed
a significant trend in the direction opposite to that hypothesized on the
basis of odor exposure. That is, the lowest percent of respondents reported
this symptom in Area 1, the area of greatest exposure, and the highest
percent of respondents reported the symptom in Area III, the area of least
exposure. Similar analysis of the data separately by sex showed that this
trend was significant only among men (Table 10).
Area trends were a.lso tested within groups classified by amount bothered by
the odor (not shown in tables). All but one significant trend were in a
direction opposite to that which would support the hypothesis that symptoms
are reported more frequently in areas witli greater exposure to the odor.
These include nervousness, headache, sleeplessness, and chest pain. The
one exception is dizziness, nausea, and vomiting, which showed a pos i tive
relationship to presumptive area exposure to odor for those reporting it
frequently among the group very much or moderately bothered, but a negative
relationship for those reporting it frequently or occasionally among the
group a little or not at all bothered. Both of these results, however, arc-
based upon small expected values.
-201 -
-------
For all areas combined, x2 tests were also done to test for the possible
relationship of symptoms to the degree to which respondents reported being
bothered by the odor. No significant x2's were obtained for individuals
reporting symptoms frequently (Table 11), but among individuals reporting
symptoms frequently or occasionally (Table 12), significant relationships
were found between amount bothered by the odor and dizziness, nausea, or
vomiting for both sexes combined; eye irritation among both men and women;
and burning or irritation of the nose among women. These differences were
all in the direction which would support the hypothesis that the symptoms
occur more frequently among residents who are very much or moderately
bothered by the odor than among those who are not. There is, however, no
evidence to show whether the symptoms are caused by the odorous pollutants;
by other pollutants which may occur in a pattern similar to the odor, or
by other unidentified factors.
Tests for responses to the MRC questionnaire showed a significant area
trend among men in a direction opposite to that hypothesized for Grade ,3
or greater shortness of breath as defined in the appendix (Table 13).
This result was based on small expected values. No significant area
trends were found within groups classified by amount bothered (not shown
on tables), nor were there any significant relationships between responses
to the MRC questions and the amount bothered when tested for all areas
combined (Table 14).
Although the interviewers were trained in the use of the MRC questionnaire
using standardized methods, slightly modified probing rules were used to
simplify training. Therefore, the prevalence of symptoms shown in Tables 13
202 -
-------
and 14 should not be compared directly with the results of other surveys
using the standardized questions. In addition, although the MRC questions
preceded the questions concerning the frequency of other symptoms, they
followed the annoyance section of the questionnaire, and this could also
have affected the results.
Tables 13 and 14 also show the percent of positive responses to questions
on illness, visits to a doctor, and admission to a hospital during the
two weeks preceeding the interview. No significant area differences were
noted, but a significant relationship was found between the sex of the
respondent and whether he or she had visited a doctor during the last two
weeks. The proportion of women who gave a positive response to the
question "have you been to a doctor within the last two weeks?" was 297,
compared to 13% of the men. A possible explanation of the high rate among
women is that it includes visits to a doctor to obtain medical attention
for another member of the family. It may, therefore, be a reflection of
the relatively large proportion of families with young children. However,
this does not invalidate the question as a device for making area compar-
isons of family illness.
RESULTS OF EXPOSURE MEASUREMENTS
Detailed results of the exposure measurements made by dynamic olfactometry
will be presented in a separate report. However, the most important re-
sults relevant to evaluation of the annoyance reactions, are shown in
Tables 15, 16, and 17, which show, respectively, the percent of total
observations which indicated detection of odor, diurnal odor concentration
- 203-
-------
at the 95th percentlle, and the maximum odor concentration detected.
The percent of measurable odor detections shown in Table 15, indicates that
odor was detected by dynamic olfactometry in almost 100% of the observations
in all three areas. The only observations during which odor was not detected
occurred after 5:00 p.m., and there were very few.
Combining data from all days, the 95th percentiles for each hour are shown
by area in Table 16. There is little difference in the means of these 95th
percentiles, which are shown with their standard errors at the bottom of
the table. The distributions are likewise similar (not shown here). The
means of the maximum values for each hour are shown in Table 17. If one
assumes that area differences in exposure to odor do exist in the present
study, and this is supported by the annoyance reactions, one must conclude
that dynamic olfactometry is not a suitable method for demonstrating them
in communities exposed to multiple diffuse sources of odor. This may be
because the method was designed to measure exposure from one or two well-
defined point sources, or it could be a function of the type of odor
present.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The hypothesized differences between areas with respect to exposure to odor
from industrial sources appears to be confirmed by the area differences in
perception of the exposure situation (degree to which the odor was noticed)
and annoyance reactions (degree to which and frequency with which the
respondents reported being bothered by the odor). Some combinations
of the response categories, however, showed little or no difference
between Areas I and II, the areas of greatest and moderate exposure to
204 '"A/
-------
the odor. Geographically, Areas 1 and II are adjacent, Area II being
farther from the sources of odor and at a slightly higher elevation.
/
Among those who reported noticing the odor, a similar area gradient
occurred in the spontaneity with with the odor was mentioned (a measure
of the saliency of the problem to the respondent). The residents of
Area I and II were also more apt to have taken some action motivated by
the odor (a measure of lack of tolerance toward the problem). To test
the possibility that apparent area differences in these responses might
reflect demographic and other individual differences rather than a true
area effect, a series of x2 tests was carried out comparing responses to
the annoyance questions with these background variables. No evidence was
found to indicate that the area differences were an effect of the back-
ground variables.
Only one significant area trend was found in responses to the health
questions to support the hypothesis that the exposure to odor is related
to medical symptoms, as measured by the health questionnaire. This was
for dizziness, nausea, or vomiting, which showed a significant relation-
ship to exposure to odor in the percent who reported it frequently among
those very much or moderately bothered by the odor. The results, however,
are based on small expected values. For all areas combined, significant
relationships were found between the amount by which the respondent
reported being bothered by the odor and the precents reporting certain
symptoms frequently or occasionally. These were dizziness, nausea, or
vomiting; eye irritation; and burning or irritatation of the nose. Although
these findings would support the hypothesis that the odorous pollutants
are a causative factor in producing these symptoms, several other pos-
205-
-------
sibilities should be considered. The symptoms could be caused by
other pollutants which may occur in a pattern similar to the odor, they
could be caused by some unidentified third factor, or the same respon-
dents may tend both to complain of the odor and to complain of their
symptoms (reflecting a general tendency to verbalize or complain). In
any event, statistically significant association alone is not proof of
causation.
The results of the measurements of exposure to odor made by dynamic olfac-
tometry indicate that this is not a very useful method of measuring the
exposure to community odor from multiple diffuse sources. The method
was originally designed as a measure of exposure to point sources and
appears to fulfill this function well, especially as regards the presence
or absence of odor.
The large differences found between the percents of men and women reporting
certain symptoms point out the importance of either doing the analyses
separately by sex or designing the sample in such a way that the propor-
tions of men and women are the same in the subpopulations being compared.
206
-------
Table I
INSCRIPTION OF POPULATION SAMPLES
CARSON, 1972
Original Sample
Respondent
Non-RcspondcMls
Refusals
Unable to CnnhK i
Vacant Houses
AREA 1
Tui.il
102
97
3
1
2
2
Male
.45
44
1
. 1
nn
Female
55 '
53
1
na
AREA II
Total
102
95
5
3
2
2
Male
43
41
2
1
1
na
Female
57
54
3
2
1
na
AREA III
Total
100
99
1
1
Male
46
46
11,1
Female
54
53
1
1
na
Not applicable.
207
-------
Table 2
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH ODOR FROM INDUSTRY WAS NOTICED
CARSON, 1972
Total
Every Day
At Least Once a Week
At Least Once a Month
Less Often or Don't Know
Not Noticed at All
AREA J
97
20
28
23
14
12
AREA 11
95
14
34
21
14
12
AREA III
99
4
12
10
20
53
X2 Total
X2 For Trend
X2 For Departure From Trend
Degrees
of
Freedoin
2
1
1
Every Day
or Once a Week
31.6**
23.1**
8.5**
Not Noticed
at All
56.5**
43.0**
13.5**
Significant at the 1% level.
208
-------
Table 3
AMOUNT BOTHERED BY ODOR FROM INDUSTRY
CARSON, 1972
Total
Odor Noticed
Very Much Bothered
Moderately Bothered
A Little Bothered
Not at All Bothered
or Don't Know
Odor Not Noticed or
Don't Know
AREA 1
97
85
44
15
26
-
12
AREA II
95
83
31
26
22
4
12
AREA III
99
46
10
14
17
5
53
Degrees Very Much or
of Moderately
Freedom Bothered
X2 Total
X2 For Trend
X2 For Departure From Trend
22.3 "
16.8' '
5.5'
Statistically significant at the 5% level.
Statistically significant at the 1% level.
Not at All
Bothered or
Very Much Odor Not
Bothered Noticed
30.3' *
29.5' '
0.8
6I.2'4
50.5* '
10.7' *
209
-------
Table 4
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH BOTHERED BY ODOR FROM INDUSTRY
CARSON, 1972
Total
Very Much or Moderately
Bothered
Often
Occasionally
Seldom
Only a Little, or Not
at All
AREA I
97
59
18
23
18
38
AREA II
95
57
12
26
19
38
AREA III
99
24
3
8
13
75
Degrees
of Often or
Freedom Often Occasionally
X2 Total
X2 For Trend
X2 For Departure From Trend
2
1
1
12.0**
11.8**
0.2
27.7**
22.4**
5.3*
* Significant at the 5% level.
*+ Significant at the 1% level.
X tests based on total number of respondents.
210
-------
Table 5
ESTIMATION ON CHANGE IN ODOR FROM INDUSTRY
SINCE PREVIOUS YEAR
CARSON, 1972
Total
Very Much or Moderately
Bothered
No Change or Don't Know
Better Less Odor
Use to it
Worse More Odor
More Sensitive
Only a Little or Not Bothered at
All, Odor Not Noticed, or
Don't Know
AREA I
97
59
46
4
1
7
1
38
AREA 11
95
57
45
3
f>
3
3H
AREA III
99
24
19 :>
1
2
1
75
Includes one "no response".
211
-------
Table 6
SPONTANEITY OF MENTION OF ODOR FROM INDUSTRY BY
AMOUNT BOTHERED
CARSON, 1972
NJ
a
SJ
Total
Spontaneous Mention of Odor
Probed Mention of Odor
No Mention of Odor
AREA I
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
59
27
32
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
38
10
16
12
AREA II
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
57
26
31
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
38
10
18
10
AREA III
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
24
4
20
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
75
1
22
52
X Total
X" For Trend
^
X~ For Departure From Trend
Degrees
of
Freedom
2
1
1
Spontaneous vs Probed
Significant at the 5% level.
Significant at the 1% level.
Within Very Much
or Moderately Bothered
6.94*
6.90**
0.04
Within Little or
Not at All Bothered
8.74*
6.90**
1.84
-------
Tabl
e
ACTION CONCERNING ODOR PROBLEM BY EXTENT TO WHICH
BOTHERED BY ODOR FROM INDUSTRY
CARSON. 1972
tsj
CO
Total
Action Taker.
Action Thought ot
Neither
AREA I
Verv Much
or Moderately
Bothered
59
11
4
44
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
38
2
36
AREA II
Verv Much
or Moderately
Bothered
57
12
4
41
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
38
1
1
36
AREA III
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
24
2
1
21
Little or
No: at All
Bothered
75
4
1
70
Note: Question concerning action was asked only of respondents who had indicated that
they thought a serious or somewhat serious problem (not limited to odor) existed
in the community. Others were included in the "neither" category.
-------
Table 8
TESTS OF BACKGROUND VARIABLES
(ONE DEGREE OF FREEDOM)
CARSON, 1972
VARIABLE
Sex
Male
Female
Age
<50 years
>50 years
Marital Status
Married
Other
Occupation
White collar
Other (blue collar and professional)
Job Associated With Petrochemical Industry
(respondent or spouse)
Yes
No
General Attitude Toward Odor
Annoying
Not too annoying
or not annoying at all
General Attitude Toward Noise
Annoying
Not too annoying
or not annoying at all
Estimation of Odor Problem in Carson
Greater than other cities its si/e
Other
Estimation of Noise Problem in Carson
Less than other cities its si/,e
Other
Attitude of Authorities Toward Air Pollution
Too little concerned
Other
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
60
80
126
14
121
19
40
100
4
136
126
14
85
55
66
74
31
109
85
55
Other
71
80
124
27
131
20
32
119
1
150
85
66
69
82
24
127
31
120
70
81
X2
(1 Degree
of Freedom )
0.35
3.10
0.01
1.75
0.97
39.74**
5.99*
31.76**
0.04
5.45*
214
-------
Table- 8 (Continued)
\2 TESTS OF BACKGROUND VARIABLES
(ONE DEC.REE OF FREEDOM)
CARSON, 1(>72
VARIABLE
Household Structure
Adults only
Children
Sal islaction With Community
Things other than odor from industry
don't like
Other
Housing Index
1 2
3 5
Concern About Other Community Problems.
At least one other problem
serious/somewhat serious
Other
Exposure (hours/day)
Six hours or less
Other
How Long in Area
Same residential area <1 ye
Same residential area ^] ye
rated
ar
ar
Action Taken on Other Community Problems
(.writing or phoning an offici.
il, signing
a petition, or attending a meeting)
Yes
No
Very Much
or Modi rately
Bothered
28
112
101
39
59
81
105
35
81
59
13
127
50
90
Other
46
105
102
49
64
87
104
47
76
75
21
130
39
1 12
X^
(1 Degree
of Freedom)
3.66
0.51
0.01
1.06
1.37
1.09
2.90
Significant at 5% level.
Significant at 1% level.
215
-------
Table 9
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS
FREQUENTLY AND FREQUENTLY OR OCCASIONALLY
CARSON, 1972
Number of Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Sleeplessness
Dizziness, nausea,
or vomiting
Constipation
Pain in Joints
Difficulty in Urinating
Sinus Congestion
Eye Irritation
Burning or irritation
of the Nose
Runny Nose
Chest Pain**
FREQUENTLY
Total
291
25.8
11.7
7.6
4.5
4.1
11.0
2.1
13.1
19.6
4.8
8.2
2.7
Area I
97
25.8
12.4
6.2
6.2
3.1
13.4
1.0
11.3
19.6
4.1
7.2
2.1
Area 11
95
22.1
6.3
6.3
3.2
2.1
7.4
1.1
13.7
18^9
6.3
5.3
0.0
Area III
99
29.3
16.2
10.1
4.0
7.1
12.1
4.0
14.1
20.2
4.0
12.1
6.1
FREQUENTLY OR OCCASIONALLY
Total
291
52.9
48.8
33.3
12.7
17.9
31.6
5.5
36.8
57.0
19.9
28.2
15.8
Area I
97
55.7
47.4
33.0
11.3
14.4
33.0
5.2
35.1
57.7
16.5
26.8
9.3
Area 11
95
48.4
50.5
37.9
12.6
21.1
19.5
5.3
40.0
64.2
25.3
28.4
13.7
Area III
99
54.5
48.5
29.3
14.1
18.2
32.3
6.1
35.4
49.5
18.2
29.3
24.2
~)C for trend tor percent reporting sympton frequently or occassionally is significant
at 1% level (8.27 with 1 degree of freedom) but direction of trend is opposite to th;it
hypothesized.
216
-------
Table 10
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS FREQUENTLY OR OCCASIONALLY
BY SEX AND AREA
CARSON. 1972
AREA
Number ot Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Sleeplessness
Dizziness, nausea.
or vomiting
Constipation
Pain in Joints
Difficulty in Urinating
Sinus Congestion
Eve Irritation
Burning or Irritation
ot the Nose
Runnv Nose
Chesr Pain "
MALE
Total
131
42.7
40.5
30.5
7.6
14.5
28.2
5.3
37.4
56.5
13.7
23.7
15.3
Area I
44
40.9
34.1
31.8
4.5
13.6
34.1
6.8
31.8
56.8
11.4
15.9
6.8
Area II
41
43.9
53.7
39.0
12.2
22.0
26.8
4.9
46.3
63.4
12.2
31.7
14.6
Area III
46
43.5
34.8
21.7
6.5
8.7
23.9
4.3
34.8
50.0
17.4
23.9
23.9
FEMALE
Total
160
61.2
55.6
35.6
16.9
20.6
34.4
5.6
36.2
57,5
25.0
31.9
16.2
Area 1
53
67.9
58.5
34.0
17.0
15.1
32.1
3.8
37.7
58.5
20.8
35.8
11.3
Area 11
54
51.9
48.1
37.0
13.0
20.4
31.5
5.6
35.2
64.8
35.2
25.9
13.0
Area III
53
64.2
60.4
- 35.8
20.8
26.4
39.6
7.5
35.8
49.1
18.9
34.0
24.5
X~ tor trend among males is significant at 5% level (5.09 with 1 degree of freedom'
but direction of trend is opposite to that hypothesized.
-------
Table 11
PERCENT REPORTING SYMPTOMS FREQUENTLY BY SEX
AND AMOUNT BOTHERED BY ODOR
CARSON, 1972
SJ
_3
oo
Number of Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Sleeplessness
Dizziness, nausea,
or vomiting
Constipation
Pain in Joints
Difficulty in Urinating
Sinus Conjestion
Eye Irritation
Burning or Irritation
of the Nose
Runny Nose
Chest Pain
TOTAL
Total
291
25.8
11.7
7.6
4.5
4.1
11.0
2.1
13.1
19.6
4.8
8.2
1.7
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
140
26.4
11.4
8.6
5.7
4.3
11.4
1.4
15.0
22.9
5.7
10.7
2.7
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
151
25.2
11.9
6.6
3.3
4.0
10.6
2.6
11.3
16.6
4.0
6.0
3.3
MALE
Total
131
21.4
8.4
6.9
3.1
2.3
8:4
0.8
13.0
19.8
3.8
6.1
3.8
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
60
18.3
8.3
8.3
3.3
1.7
6.7
0.0
13.3
25.0
3.3
5.0
1.7
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
71
23.9
8.5
5.6
2.8
2.8
9.9.
1.4
12.7
15.5
4.2
7.0
5.6
FEMALE
Total
160
29.4
14.4
8.1
5.6
5.6
13.1
3.1
13.1
19.4
5.6
10.0
1.9
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
80
32.5
13.8
8.8
7.5
6,2
15.0
2.5
16.2
21.2
7.5
15.0
2.5
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
80
26.2
15.0
7.5
3.8
5.0
11.2
3.8
10.0
17.5
3.8
5.0
1.2
No X tests for relationship between amount bothered by odor and percent reporting symptoms were significant.
-------
Table 12
'PERCENT REPORTING SYMPTOMS FREQUENTLY OR OCCASIONALLY
BY SEX AND AMOUNT BOTHERED BY ODOR
CARSON, 1972
Number of Respondents
Nervousness
Headache
Sleeplessness
Dizziness, nausea.
or vomiting"
Constipation
Pain in Joints
Difficulty in Urinating
Sinus Conjestion
Eye Irritation' *
Burning or Irritation
of the Nose" ' "
Runny Nose
Chest Pain
TOTAL
Total
291
52.9
48.8
33.3
12.7
17.9
31.6
5.5
36.8
57.0
19.9
28.2
15.8
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
140
54.3
50.7
37.9
17.1
20.0
32.9
6.4
42.1
67.9
25.0
27.9
15.7
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
151
51.7
47.0
29.1
8,6
15.9
30.5
4.6
31.8
47.0
15.2
28.5
15.9
MALE
Total
131
42.7
40.5
30.5
7.6
14.5
28.2
5.3
37.4
56.5
13.7
23.7
15.3
Very Much
or Moderately-
Bothered
60
38.3
43.3
38.3
10.0
16.7
25.0
5.0
41.7
68.3
13.3
21.7
13.3
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
71
46.5
38.0
23.9
5.6
12.7
31.0
5.6
33.8
46.5
14.1
25.4
16.9
FEMALE
Total
160
61.2
55.6
35.6
16.9
20.6.
34.4
5.6
36.2
57.5
25.0
31.9
16.2
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
80
66.2
56.2
37.5
22.5
22.5
38.8
7.5
42.5
67.5
33.8
32.5
17.5
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
80
56.2
55.0
33.8
11.2
18.8
30.0
3.8
30.0
47.5
16.2
31.2
15.0
10
ID
\" tor relationship between amount bothered by odor and percent reporting symptoms significant at 5% level
for both sexes combined (4.03 with 1 degree of freedom).
~)C significant at 1% level for both sexes combined (12.04 with 1 degree of freedom), and at 5% level for
males (5.46 with 1 degree of freedom) and females (5.75 with 1 degree of freedom).
X~ significant at the 5% level tor females (5.63 with 1 degree of freedom).
-------
Table 13
PERCENT REPORTING COUGH, PHLEGM, SHORTNESS OF BREATH, AND ILLNESS OR
VISITS TO A DOCTOR OR HOSPITAL WITHIN THE LAST TWO WEEKS
CARSON, 1972
Numbers of Observations
Cough Grade 1 or 2
Cough Grade 2
Phlegm Grade 1 or 2
Phlegm Grade 2
Persistent Cough
and Phlegm
Shortness of Breath
Grade 2 or Greater
Grade 3 or Greater*
Sick Within Last 2 Weeks
Saw Doctor Within
Last 2 Weeks
Patient in Hospital
Within Last 2 Weeks
TOTAL
Area 1
97
18.6
5.2
17.5
3.1
9.3
30.9
8.2
13.4.
19.6
2.1
Area II
95
14.7
8.4
18.9
5.3
8.4
24.2
8.4
20.0
17.9
4.2
Area III
99
20.2
8.1
18.2
9.1
12.1
37.4
13.1
17.2
27.3
2.0
MALE
Area 1
44
1H.2
4.5
20.5
4.5
9.1
18.2
2.3
6.8
13.6
2.3
Area II
41
14.6
9.8
19.5.
4.9
7.3
19.5
4.9 .
22.0
9.8
4.9
Area III
46
26.1
15.2
23.9
15.2
17.4
34.8
13.0
15.2
15.2
2.2
FEMALE
Area 1
53
18.9
5.7
15.1
1.9
9.4
41.5
13.2
18.9
24.5
1.9
Area 11
54
14.8
7.4
18.5
5.6
9.3
27.8
1 1.1
18.5
24.1
3.7
Area III
5.3
15.1
1.9
1.V.2
3.8
7.3
39.6
13.2
18.9
37.7
1.9
X2 lor trend significant at 5% level for males (4.11 with 1 degree of freedom), but direction of trend i
opposite to that hypothesized.
Note: The following x~ show significant differences by sex:
Shortness of breath Grade 2 or greater
Area I 5.08*
All arc.is combined 4.18'
Visits to dot'tor within the las! 2 weeks
Area III 5.21 '
All areas combined 9.65* *
Significant at the 5% level.
Significant at the I % level.
Degrees of freedom
220
-------
Table 14
PERCENT REPORTING COLGH. PHLEGM. SHORTNESS OF BREATH, AND ILLNESS OR
VISITS TO A DOCTOR OR HOSPITAL WITHIN THE LAST TWO WEEKS
CARSON. 1972
Numbers of Observations
Cough Grade 1 or 2
Cough Grade 2
Phlegm Grade 1 or 2
Phlegm Grade 2
Persistent Cough
and Phlegm
Shortness or' Breath
Grade 2 or Greater
Grade 3 or Greater
Sick Within Last 2 Weeks
Saw Doctor Within
Last 2 Weeks
Patient in Hospital
Within Last 2 Weeks
Total
291
17.9
7.2
18.2
5.8
10.0
30.9
10.0
16.8
21.6
2.7
BOTH SEXE:
Verv Much
or Moderatelv
Bothered
140
19.3
8.6
20.7
5.7
11.4
32.9
8.6
20.0
23.6
2.1
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
151
16.6
6.0
15.9
6.0
8.6
29.1
11.3
13.9
19.9
3.3
Total
131
19.8
9.9
21.4
8.4
11.4
24.4
6.1
14.5
13.0
3.1
MALE
1 " " "
Very Much
or Moderately
Bothered
60
18.3
8.3
21.7
6.7
10.0
23.3
1.7
15.0
15.0
3.3
Little or
Not at All
Bothered
71
21.1
11.3
21. r
9.9
12.7
25.4
9.9
14.1
11.3
2.8
Total
160
16.2
5.0
15.6
3.8
8.8
36,2
12.5
18.8
28.8.
2.5
FEMALE
Yerv Much
1 or MoJeratelv
Bothered
80
20.0
8.8
20.0
5.0
12.5
40. 0
.13.8
23.8
30.0
1.2
Little or
Not At All
Buthercd
80
12.5
1.2
11.2
2.5
5.0
32.5
11.2
13.8
27.5
3.8
NJ
NJ
Note: No \~ tests 'or amount bothered by odor and percent reporting symptoms were signitic.mc.
-------
Table 15
PERCENT MEASURABLE ODOR DETECTIONS
(ODOR FREQUENCY)
CARSON, 1972
NJ
KJ
NJ
TIME OF DAY
Total 0800-2400
0800-1130
1200-1630
1700-2400
AREA I
Total Number
of
Observations
917
248
271
398
Percent of
Observations
With Odor
99.78
100.00
100.00
99.50
AREA II
Total Number
of
Observations
880
242
262
376
Percent of
Observations
With Odor
99.89
100.00
100.00
99.73
AREA III
Total Number
of
Observations
1190
332
376
482
Percent of
Observations
With Odor
99.92
100.00
100.00
99.79
-------
Table- 16
DIURNAL ODOR CONCENTRATION AT95tli PERCENTILE
BY AREA ANDTIME
(AS ppbCH3SH)
CARSON, 1972
TIME ()!' DAY
0800
0830
0900
0930
1000
1030
1100
1 1 30
1200
1230
1300
I 330
1400
1430
1500
1530
1 600
1 630
1 700
1730
1800
1830
1 900
1930
2000
2030
2100
2 1 30
2200
2230
Mean
s
N
SE,
AREA 1
420.0
67.8
98.6
410.5
71.0
88.2
125.8
198.3
.81.1
71.1
83.3
58.0
390.3
71.3
63.7
41.8
84.8
58.5
127.6
58.1
136.?
113.7
43.6
106.1
128.3
111.1
88.5
64.3
48.8
68.0
119.28
103.09
30
18.82
AREA il
67.4
321.7
59.2
62.3
407.8
88.0
121.2
88.6
92.5
100.4
143.4
83.3
69.8
154.3
118.4
' 63.6
655.6
56.1
133.8
137.3
45.6
89.2
68.1
59.6
70.2
42.6
82.5
67.7
69.7
61.7
122.72
127.01
30
', 23.19
AREA 111
102.1
77.3
253.8
60.1
73.4
472.2
100.4
126.3
81.2
76.2
87.2
462.5
83.3
1 07. 3
102.2
71.4
74.4
398.1
88.7
246.2
73.3
42.2
94.3
61.1
75.3
161.5
45.7
168.5
78.6
86.8
134.39
116.43
30
21.26
223
-------
Table 17
MAXIMUM ODOR CONCENTRATION DETECTED
BY AREA AND TIME
(AS ppb CH3SH)
CARSON, 1972
SAMPLING INTERVAL
BEGUN AT
0800
0830
0900
0930
1000
1030
1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
1400
1430
1500
1 530
1 600
1 630
1700
1730
1800
1830
1900
1930
2000
2030
2100
2130
2200
2230
Mean
s
N
SE-
AREA 1
915.1
156.5
133.4
520.1
105.5
97.5
192.8
234.6
118.9
89.6
85.4
74.5
393.6
109.4
92.4
42.0
1 1 3.2
73.4
204.8
80.3
250.0
451.0
53.2
198.0
253.2
153.9
290.2
98.7
57,6
1 04.6
191.45
180.63
30
32.98
AREA II
74.5
528.6
71.5
70.7
448.1
148.8
356.4
114.6
202.9
141.3
237.6
152.4
115.1
260.7
221.8
66.7
713.0
82.0
158.2
128.3
49.5
113.1
110.1
99.8
89.7
44.9
150.1
72.5
73.5
87.1
172.78
153.46
30
28.02
AREA III
141.6
1 33.4
413.7
71.5
77.3
597.0
223.0
356.4
149.8
111.8
'97.5
657.8
100.5
312.0
193.2
80.3
95.8
7 1 3.0
113.2
331.6
95.1
60.8
157.9
63.8
85.3
577.1
52.7
274.6
88.7
114.7
218.04
192.71
30
35.18
224
-------
CARSON. CALIFORNIA
-------
REFERENCES
1. Friberg, L; Jonsson, E.; and Cederlof, R.: Studier over Sanitara
Olagenheter av Rokgaser frSn en Sulfatcellulosafabrik (I) Nordisk
Hygienisk Tidskrift 41:41-50, 1960.
2. Cederlof R.; Friberg, L.; Jonsson, E.; Kaij.L.; and Lindvall, T.:
Studies of Annoyance Connected with Offensive Smell from a Sulphate
Cellulose Factory, Nordisk Hygienisk Tidskrift 45:39-48, 1964.
3. Smith, W.S.; Schueneman, J.J.; and Zeidberg, L.D.: Public Reaction to
Air Pollution in Nashville, Tennessee, APCA J 14:418-423 (October) 1964.
4. Jonsson, E.; Deane, M.; Sanders, G.: Community Reactions to Odors from
Pulp Mills, A Pilot Study in Eureka, California. Unpublished.
5. Deane, M.; Jonsson, E.: Trends in Community Annoyance Reactions to
Odors from Pulp Mill, Eureka, California, 1969-1971. Unpublished.
6. Medalia, N.Z.: Community Perception of Air Quality: An Opinion
Survey in Clarkston, Washington (USPHS Publication No. 999-AP-(10),
1965.
7. Sanders, G.; Umbraco, R.; Twiss, S.; Mueller, P.K.: The Measurement
of Malodor in a Community by Dynamic Olfactometry, AIHL Report 86,
California State Health Department, Berkeley.
226
-------
8. AIHL Recommended Method Number 25A, Measurement of Odor Concentration
by Dynamic Olfactometry. California State Department of Public Health,
Berkeley.
9. Medical Research Council's Committee on the Aetiology of Chronic-
Bronchitis, Brit. Med. J., 11:1655, 1960.
10. Jonsson, E. : Om Olika Metoder for Studier av Yttre Miljb'faktorers
Stb'rande Effekt, Nordisk Psykologi 14:270-288, 1962.
11. Annitage, P.: Tests for Linear Trends in Proportions and Frequencies,
Biometrics 10:375-386.
227
-------
CARSON COMMUNITY ODOR STUDY
APPENDIX
Definitions of Analytic and Background Variables
Table 2
Positive responses to two questions were used to measure the
frequency with which odor from industries was noticed by the respondent:
A. "Have you noticed odors from industries here at home during
the last three months?"
B. Respondents who gave a positive response were asked: "How
often? Is it every day, at least once a week, at least
once a month, or less often?" The "not noticed at all"
category included individuals who did not know whether they
had noticed the odor. (See page 12 of the questionnaire.)
Table 3
Individuals who had given positive answers to Question A (above)
were classified according to the extent bothered by pulp mill odor
according to responses to the following question:
C. "Would you say it has bothered you only a little, moderately,
very much, not at all?" (See page 12 of questionnaire.)
228
-------
Table 4
Respondents who had indicated on Question C th.it they were very
much or moderately bothered were tabulated by "frequency with which
bothered" on the basis of answers to Question B (above) and an additional
question:
D. "How often has it bothered you? Is it almost every time,
about half the time, less often?"
The definitions of "frequency with which bothered" in terras of responses
to Questions B and D are shown bel:>w:
How Often Noticed
(Question B)
Every day
At least once
a week
At least once
a month
Less often or
don ' t know
How 0:ten Bothered (Question D)
Almost , every time
or about, half the time
Of ;en
Occasionally
Seldom
i
Se. lorn
Less Often
or don ' t know
Occasionally
Seldom
Seldom
Seldom
Table 5
Respondents who were very much c1 moderately bothered, as measured
/'
by responses to Question C, were cai i-.gorized by responses to the following
three questions:
229
-------
E. "You said the odors have bothered you. Do you think it's
better, worse, or the same this year as last year?"
»
(See page 13 of the questionnaire.) If "better", question F
was asked, if "worse", question G was asked.
F. "Do you think it's because there is less odor or because you
have become used to it?" (See page 13 of the questionnaire.)
G. "Do you think it's because there is more odor or because you
are more sensitive to it?" (See page 13 of the questionnaire.)
Table 6
Respondents were tabulated according to whether they mentioned the
pulp mill odor "spontaneously" or gave a "probed" response, defined
as follows:
"Spontaneous mention of odors" was defined as mention of odors in
response to the following questions:
H. "What are some of the things you don't li\e about living
here?"
I. "Have you ever felt like moving away from this residential
area?" If yes, "when you have felt like moving away, what
has the reason been?"
230
-------
J. "If you could find a similar apartment (house) which would
not be more expensive in another residential area, would
you like to move there?" If yes, "why would you like to
do this?"
K. "Is there anything here in the community that you think is
harmful for you or your family?" If yes, "what is this?"
These questions occur early in the questionnaire before odors from
industry have been mentioned by the interviewer. (See pages 4-5 of the
questionnaire.)
"Probed mention of industrial odors" was defined as a positive
response to the following question:
L. "Have you notice odors from industries here at home
during the last three months?"
"No mention of industrial odors" was defined as a negative response
to Question L with no previous mention of odors.
Table 7
Data shown on Table 7 were tabulated from positive responses, with
mention of industrial odor, to the following questions:
M. "Have you ever thought of requesting, or have you
231
-------
actually requested some authority or agency to take action
concerning any of these problems, e.g., by writing or
phoning an official, signing a petition, or attending a
meeting?" If so, "what problem was it?" (See page 9
of the questionnaire.)
N. "Have you ever felt like moving away from this residential
area?" If yes, "when you have felt like moving away, what
has the reason been?" (See page 4 of the questionnaire.)
Question M was asked only of respondents who had given a "serious" or
"somewhat serious" response to the following question:
0. "Here are a few problems which different communities are
facing. How would you rate each of these for Carson today
in terms of serious, somewhat serious or not serious?
Outbreaks of contagious diseases, such as whooping
cough, diphtheria, etc.
Water pollution.
Noise in the community or residential area.
Air pollution.
Are there any other problems which you think are serious
or somewhat serious for Carson?"
232
-------
Table 8
Background Variables
Satisfaction with community
Individuals who indicated on a combination of three questions that
there were things other than industrial odor that they did not like
about the residential area, were tested against all others. Those who
didn't know whether to rate the community good, fair, or poor were
included in the latter category.
Housing Index was derived from the number of bedrooms in the household
and the number of married couples, single adults and children.
Households coded 1-2 as indicated below were tested against those
coded 3-5.
Married
couples +
single
individuals
Bedrooms
2345 67
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3
2
3
4.
5
2
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
2
3
1
2
3 2
3 2
3 2
3
233
-------
Table 9-12
The frequency with which symptoms were reported were tablulated from
responses to the following:
"I am going to read you a list of symptoms and I should like you
to tell me whether you have each one frequently, occasionally or
hardly ever."
Table 13-15
The tables on cough, phlegm, and shortness of breath were tabulated
from responses to the following section of the questionnaire:
PREAMBLE: "1 am going to ask you some questions, mainly about your chest.
I should like you to answer 'YES1 or 'NO1 whenever possible."
COUGH
1. "Do you usually cough first thing in the morning (on getting up)?"
Count a cough with first smoke or on first going out of doors.
Exclude clearing throat or & single cough.
3. "Do you usually cough during the day - or at night?"
Ignore an occasional cough.
If 'No' to both questions 1 and 3, go to question 6.
If 'Yes' to either question 1 or 3:
234
-------
5. "Do you cough like this on most days (or nights) for as much as three
months each year?"
PHLEGM
6. "Do you usually bring up any phlegm from your chest first thing in the
morning (on getting up)?"
Count phlegm with the first smoke or on first going out of doors. Exclude
phlegm from the nose. Count swallowed phlegm.
8. "Do you usually bring up any phlegm from your chest during the day - or at
night?"
Accept twice or more.
If 'Yes' to either question 6 or 8:
10. "Do you bring up phlegm like this on most days (or nights) for as much as
three months each year?"
BREATHLESSNESS
14a "Are you troubled by shortness of breath when hurrying on level ground or
walking up a slight hill?"
If 'Yes' to question 14a:
235
-------
14b "Do you get short of breath walking with other people of your own age on
level ground?"
If 'Yes1 to question 14b:
14c "Do you have to stop for breath when walking at your own pace on level
ground?"
Cough, phlegm, and shortness of breath were graded as follows:
Cough Grade 0: 'No1 to both questions 1 and 3 or 'no' to
question 5.
Grade 1: 'Yes' to either questions 1 or 3 and 'yes' to
question 5.
Grade 2: 'Yes' to both questions 1 and 3 and 'yes' to
question 5.
Phlegm Grade 0: 'No' to both questions 6 and 8 or 'no' to
question 10.
Grade 1: 'Yes' to either questions 6 or 8 and 'yes'
to question 10.
Grade 2: 'Yes' to both questions 6 and 8 and 'yes' to
question 10.
Shortness of Breath
Grade 1: 'No' to question 14a.
Grade 2: 'Yes' to question 14a and 'no' to question 14b.
Grade 3: 'Yes' to question 14b and 'no' to question 14c.
Grade 4: 'Yes' to question 14c.
236
-------
SECTION VI-G
RICHMOND ODOR PANEL STUDY
I. Background
Since the best known detector of the frequency, intensity, and character
of odor as it effects people is the human nose, periodic reports from a
panel of community residents is a logical candidate for gathering data
to be used in a surveillance system. Such a system differs from the
community annoyance and health survey in that it documents reactions at
specific times rather than over a period of time, as well as generating
reports which are repetitive at regular intervals. Negative as well
as positive reports are collected, permitting construction of rates.
II. Aims
This study was undertaken on a pilot basis primarily as a feasibility study.
Thus primary emphasis in reporting results will be focussed on completeness
and adequacy of reporting, problems encountered, and potential usefulness
of data collected.
Ill. Methodology
A. Selection of Areas
Three areas of Richmond were selected to represent different ex-
posures to odor. These were: a central area which is part of
the area covered by a Model Cities program and which is exposed
to odors from refineries and other industrial plants, Point Richmond,
which is exposed sporadically to refinery odor, and the eastern
portion of Richmond, which is expected to be relatively free from
exposure to the odor.
237
-------
B. Selection of Panels
Selection of individuals participating in the study was the re-
sponsibility of the Model Cities Program in central Richmond and
the Contra Costa County Health Department in Point Richmond and
east Richmond. Thirty participants were selected scattered
throughout the central Richmond area, and an arrangement was
made to pay each participant $10 per month. Ten participants
each were chosen to represent Point Richmond and east Richmond;
these were not paid. Selection was made on the basis of interest
in the project, reliability, and probability of being at home
during the required reporting times.
C. Method of Reporting
Several alternative methods of reporting were considered, including
telephoning to a supervisor, having supervisors telephone to each
panel member, mailing of reports to supervisors, and providing for
collection of reports by supervisors. A trial period was initiated
using report cards to be mailed daily in pre-addressed, prepaid
postage envelopes, but this proved to be an unsatisfactory method of
obtaining timely and complete reports. The method finally used was
to provide for weekly pick-up and monitoring of reports by supervisors.
238
-------
Each participant was asked to complete a separate form three times a
day at 10 A.M., 4 P.M., and 10 P.M. The respondent was asked
whether odor was noticed, if so, to what extent it bothered him, how
it bothered him, where he thought the odor came from, and wnere he
was when the odor was noticed. The last question permits separating
positive responses which were made when the individual was not at
home from those made elsewhere.
One of the deficiencies of the questionnaire is that the respondent
was not required to fill out the remainder of the questionnaire if
he indicated on the first question that he did not notice the odor
at the time the report was made. Therefore for negative reports,
it is not known whether the observation was made at home. This
is reflected in some uncertainty in the denominator upon which
rates are based.
It has been necessary to assume that negative reports were made at
home unless otherwise indicated voluntarily by the panelist, and
this is probably an adequate representation of the situation.
The report form also included a section for reporting of odors at
times other than those for which regular reports were requested.
V. Results
A. Completeness of Reporting
A comparison of the number of reports received per participant in
each area with the target number is shown by month in Table 1. The
239
-------
target number of reports per person per month was obtained by multi-
plying the number of days for each month by three (the number of
reports due for each day). The range of reports per person is large,
but this is partly a reflection of reports from participants who
entered the study late or dropped out before completion. No attempt
was made to compensate for this. The medians, however, should not
be appreciably affected. The median number of reports per person
expressed as percent of target number per month ranged from 43.5 to
84.4 for central Richmond, 74.4 to 93.5 for Point Richmond, and
74.4 to 96.8 for east Richmond.
B. Percent of Positive Reports
The median percent of positive reports per person is shown by
month and area in Table 2. These are not noticeably different
between areas, nor is there a consistent area gradient from
month to month. A considerable drop appears to occur from
September to January in all three areas. Large differences
occur by individual participant, however, ranging from 0.0 in
each area to 81.3 in central Richmond, 60.5 in Point Richmond,
and 52.4 in east Richmond.
The percents of positive reports are shown by area, time of day,
and month in Table 3. Central Richmond appears to have the largest
overall percent of positive reports, followed by east Richmond.
However, the high percentage in central Richmond is partly a function
of the high central Richmond rates for the beginning and end of the
study, and could result from a selective bias. Point Richmond appears
240
-------
to show a relatively consistently higher percent of positive reports
in the morning when compared with other times of day, while higher
percents are reported from east Richmond in the late evening. No
such consistent time-of-day effects are seen for central Richmond.
The degree to which respondents were bothered by the odor, physical
symptoms they experienced, and the presumed source or type of odor
are shown by area and time on Tables 4-6. Percents are based only
on numbers of positive reports, and should be interpreted accordingly.
Point Richmond had the largest percentage of positive reports in
which individuals reported being very much bothered and the smallest
percent not at all bothered (Table 4) . East Richmond had the largest
percent not at all bothered. Time of day differences were not
consistent.
Relatively few of the complaints of odor refer to physical effects
(Table 5). For all areas and times of day combined, nose irritation
was most frequently mentioned (11.9%), followed by eye irritation
(8.1%). Difficulty in breathing (6.0%), nausea (5.9%), and throat
irritation (4.8%) were mentioned with about equal frequency- Headache
was mentioned relatively rarely (0.9%). These represent responses to
an open-ended question and are probably a conservative estimate of
effects. Some area differences are evident although these should
be interpreted in the light of possible socio-economic and educational
differences.
241
-------
Nose irritation, eye irritation, and throat irritation were mentioned
most frequently in Point Richmond; nose irritation, throat irritation
and difficulty in breathing in east Richmond; and nose irritation,
eye irritation, and nausea in central Richmond. Time of day differences
were not consistent either by symptom or by area.
For positive reports of odor, respondents were asked "where do
you think the odor came from?" Replies either referred to general
or specific sources or characterized the odor by type, and were
coded into the categories shown on Table 6. For all areas and
times of day combined, 22% said they didn't know where the odor
came from or failed to answer the question. The most commonly
mentioned "source" was sulfur or sulfur compounds, which character-
ized about 20% of the positive responses. This was followed in
frequency by "burning", which represented 17%, and "other", which
represented 16%.
Traffic, industrial, and odors characterized as "putrid, dump,
or sewer" accounted for about 7% each. Smog accounted for 5% of
the responses, and "bay" for 3%. Refineries were mentioned relatively
infrequently, about 3% of the time. Very few responses mentioned
specific sources of odor by company name. Area differences were
marked. Sulfur or sulfur compounds were mentioned on over 50% of the
positive reports from Point Richmond, burning by over 40% from east
Richmond, and in central Richmond 22% were characterized as "other"
and 30% by "don't know". Differences by time of day were neither
large nor consistent.
242
-------
Cross-tabulations of source or type of odor by physical symptoms are
shown on Tables 7 and 8. These should be interpreted in the light
of the marginal percents which show the percent of positive reports
mentioning each category on Tables 4-6. For example, on Table 7,
25% of the responses mentioning headache attributed it to odors of
sulfur, but headache was reported on less than 1% of the total posi-
tive responses (Table 5) . Table 7 shows the percentage distribution
by source for each symptom. Table 8 shows the percentage distribution
by symptom for each source. The main features of both Table 7 and 8
can be summarized as follows. Nose irritation, which was mentioned
on 12% of the positive reports, was attributed principally to burning
or smoke (19%), followed by sulfur odor and traffic (17% each). Eye
irritation, mentioned on 8% of the reports, was attributed primarily
to smog (15%), traffic and "other industry" (13% each). Difficulty
in breathing (6%) was attributed mainly to burning or smoke (29%),
and sulfur and traffic (20% each).
The commonest symptom reported in response to odors of sulfur (Table 8)
(reported by 21% of the positive responses) were nose irritation (10%),
difficulty in breathing (6%) and nausea (5%). Burning or smoke
(reported by 17%) was held responsible chiefly for nose irritation
(13%) and difficulty in breathing (10%). Other or unknown odors appeared
to be the cause mainly for eye irritation (21%) and nausea (21%).
Tables 9 and 10 similarly show respectively the distribution of amount
bothered by source, and the distribution by source for each category
243
-------
of amount bothered. Thus the largest percent of reports for which
the respondent was very much or moderately bothered attributed the
odor to sulfur compounds (31%), while those who were only a little
bothered also mentioned sulfur most often (18%) . Those who were not
at all bothered by the odor, although they had reported noticing it,
most often attributed the odor to burning or smoke (45%) .
Tables 11 and 12 show respectively distribution by symptom for each
"amount bothered" category and distribution by amount bothered for
each symptom. The reports indicating that respondents were very
much bothered most frequently mentioned nausea (48%), followed
closely by nose irritation (16%) and difficulty in breathing (15%).
Being moderately bothered was associated chiefly with nose irritation
(18%) and eye irritation (16%). Almost all of those who were not
bothered at all indicated that they attributed tio physical symptoms
to the odor.
V. Discussion and Interpretation
The panel reporting system seems to offer some possibility for comparisons
over time, as well as area comparisons, and for identification of offending
odors and symptoms attributed to them. However, considerable difficulty
was encountered in some areas in obtaining adequate and timely reports.
244
-------
Also, even in the case of relatively dedicated panelists, it is unrealistic
to expect continued reporting over a long period of time. Replacement of
panelists raises questions concerning relative sensitivity to the odor.
This problem could be approached by testing panelists for odor threshold
to various substances likely to be encountered in the community. Possible.
differences in odor threshold in participants in the various areas mav
also interfere with area comparisons. Panelists were not, however, tested
for odor threshold.
With the present reporting form several sources of missing values exist:
1. Participant does not report, regardless of whether he is
at home.
2. Participant gives a positive report of odor, but is not at
home.
3. Participant gives a negative report of odor, but is not at
home. With the present form, it is impossible to ascertain
whether negative reports originated at home.
The first two cases can be designated as generating "missing values",
but in the third case, in the absence of other information on the reporting
form, we must assume that these observations were made at home in order to
obtain a denominator for rates of positive reports. This could be avoided
by using as the first question "are you at home now?" or "place where
report was made".
245
-------
Reporting of possible sources of odor and physical symptoms might be
improved by presenting respondents with check lists although possible
"leading" could result from this technique.
246
-------
Table 1
RANGE AND MEDIAN NUMBER OF REPORTS RECEIVED PER PERSON
BY AREA AND MONTH
COMPARED TO TARGET NUMBER
Richmond, 1971
Target Number of Reports Per Person
Central Richmond
Number of Participants
Number of Reports Per Participant
Range
Median
Percent of Target
Point Richmond
Number of Participants
Number of Reports Per Participant
Ra nge
Median
Percent of Target
East Richmond
Number of Participants
Number of Reports Per Participant
Range
Median
Percent of Target
SEP.
90
31
7-88
76
84.4
12
34 -74
67
74.4
10
41 75
67
74.4
OCT.
93
30
6-90
72
77.4
12
55-92
82.5
88.7
10
68 93
81.5
87.6
NOV.
90
28
7-89
61.5
68.3
11
67 90
80
88.9
10
62 90
85
94.4
DEC.
93
26
7-78
40.5
43.5
11
54- 93
76
81.7
10
28 93
88.5
95.2
JAN.
93
6
61 86
74
79.6
11
70-93
87
93.5
9
81 93
90
96.8
FEB.
87
6
11-84
66
75.9
10
25- 86
78
89.7
9
65 86
80
92.0
247
-------
Table 2
RANGE AND MEDIAN PERCENT OF POSITIVE ODOR REPORTS AT HOME
BY AREA AND MONTH
BASED ON TOTAL NUMBER OF REPORTS RECEIVED
Richmond, 1971
Central Richmond
Number of Participants
Percent Positive Reports Per Participant
Range
Median
Point Richmond
Number of Participants
Percent Positive Reports Per Participant
Range
Median
East Richmond
Number of Participants
Percent Positive Reports Per Participant
Range
Median
SEP.
31
0.0-70.0a
17.5
12
1.4-60.5
9.6
10
2.9-46.3
12.8
OCT.
30
0.0-58.5a
8.4
12
0.0-45.7
4.9
10
0.0-31.2
13.6
NOV.
28
0.0-69.0
6.1
11
0.0-40.7
3.8
10
0.0-52.4
10.4
DEC.
26
0.0-53.7
4.8
11
0.0-56.0
1.6
10
0.0-17.9
2.9
JAN.
6
0.0-72.4
3.7
11
0.0-56.0
5.7
9
2.2-22.6
3.3
FEB.
6
0.0-81.3
2.1
10
0.0-41.2
5.2
9
0.0-24.6
4.7
NJ
fr
co
Excludes one participant who only sent in positive reports.
-------
'Cable- 3
PERCENT OF POSITIVE ODOR REPORTS BY AREA, TIME OF DAY, AND MONT
Richmond, 1971
Total
Central Richmond
Total
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
10:00 PM
Point Richmond
Tot;il
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
10: 00PM
East Richmond
Total
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
10:00 PM
T( >TA 1
NUMlUiR
OF
REPORTS
1H.585
7.95}
2, 70S
2,598
2,650
5,004
1,670
1,652
1 ,682
5,628
1.878
1,867
1,883
NUMBER
POSITIVE
2,272
1 .200
1 3(>
386
384
488
226
147
115
584
131
130
314
PERCENT 'OSITIVF.
Total
12.2
15.1
15.9
14.9
14.5
9.8
13.5
8.9
6.8
1 0.4
7.0
7.4
16.7
.Aug.
35.0
35.0
30.0a
34. 2a
4l.0a
NA
NA
Sep.
17.1
20.3
20.3
20.8
20.0
13.5
18.9
11.6
10.1
13.0
10.0
8.4
20.4
Oct.
11.6
12.4
14.4
12.0
10.7
11.8
18.5
10.1
6.9
9.7
7.2
8.0
1 3.8
Nov.
10.8
1 1.2
1 1.2
12.8
9.6
13.7
17.9
13.3
10.0
7.6
4.3
5.8
12.7
Dec.
8.4
y.5
13.i.
8.4.
6.4
5.1
6.8
5.1
3.4
10.0
4.9
8.3
16.7
J.m.
11.9
19.4
16.9
17.1
24.2
7.2
9.7
5.8
6.0
1 2.2
8.5
9.1
18.9
Feb.
12.2
26.1
2-1. X
20.6
33.1
7.2
9.1
7.6
4.7
10.0
7.1
4.5
18.5
'' Based on partial month.
NA: Data not colleued Irom thc.se areas.
Note: The numbers <>l participants in each area were not constant during the
seven months ot the study.
249
-------
Table 4
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POSITIVE ODOR REPORTS
BY AMOUNT BOTHERED
FOR EACH AREA AND TIME OF DAY
Richmond, 1971
Total
Central Richmond
Total
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
10:00 PM
Point Richmond
Total
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
10: 00PM.
East Richmond
Total
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
10:00 PM
NUMBER OF
POSITIVE REPORTS
2,272
1,200
430
386
'384
488
226
147
115
584
131
139
314
PERCENT
Don't Know
or No Answer
8. 7
12.7
10.7
7.8
19.8
"3.9
2.6
6.1
3.5
4.6
7.6
5.8
2.9
Not
at All
16.8
13.6
15.1
14.0
11.5
2.0
2.2
1.4
2.6
35.8
30.5
25.2
42.7
Only
a Little
38.7
47.6
- 51.9
46.9
43.5
30.9
29.6
28.6
36.5
26.9
30.5
35.2
21.7
Moderate
17.4
10.2
7.7
12.7
10.4
35.5
37.2
38.8
27.8
17.1
16.8
20.9
15.6
Very
Much
18.4
16.0
14.6
18.6
14.8
27.7
28.3
25.2
29.6
15.6
14.5
13.0
17.2
K)
Ul
o
-------
Table 5
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POSITIVE ODOR REPORTS BY SYMPTOMS REPORTED
FOR EACH AREA AND TIME OF DAY
Richmond. 1971
Total
Central Richmond
Total
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
10:00 PM
Point Richmond
Total
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
10:00 PM
East Richmond
Total
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
10:00 PM
NUMBER OF
POSITIVE
REPORTS
2.272
1,200
430
386
384
488
226
147
115
584
131
139
314
PERCENT
Don't Know
or No Answer
7o.6
75.2
75.1
72.3
78.4
67.4
70.4
65.3
64.3
63.9
68.7
57.6
64.6
Headache
0.9
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.0
2.0
2.7
2.0
0.9
1.2
0.8
2.9
0.6
Nose
Irritation
11.9
9.4
8.8
10.6
8.9
15.8
16.4
10.2
21.7
13.9
10.7
15.8
14.3
Eve
Irritation
8.1
7.9
8.8
8.5
6.2
11.3
10.6
15.0
7.8
5.«
6.1
8.6
4.5
Throat
Irritation
4.:ve.
-------
Table 6
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POSITIVE ODOR REPORTS BY SOURCE OR TYPE
FOR EACH AREA AND TIME OF DAY
Richmond, 1971
Total
Central Richmond
Total
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
10:00 PM
Point Richmond
Total
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
10:00 PM
East Richmond
Total
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
10:00 PM
NUMBER OF
POSITIVE
REPORTS
2,272
1,200
430
386
384
488
226
147
115
584
131
139
314
PERCENT
Don't Know
22.0
29,8
26.5
26.9
36.5
11.7
11.9
8.2
15.7
14.4
16.8
18.0
11.8
Traffic
7.1
4.4
3.3
8.3
1.8
3.7
1.3
5.4
6.1
15.6
7.6
12.2
20.4
Burning
17.1
9.5
10.5
9.8
8.1
5.3
4.0
6.1
7.0
42.5
36.6
35.3
48.1
Refinery
3.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
10.0
9.7
7.5
13.9
4.5
5.3
5,0
3.8 :
Industrial
7.0
5.9
6.3
7.3
4.2
9.4
9.3
10.9
7.8
7.0
9.2
12.9
3.5
Sulfur
Compounds
20.6
15.1
16.7
15.5
12.8
52,9
50.0
55.1
55.7
4.8
4.6
1.4
6.4
Putrid,
Dump,
Sewer
6.7
10.4
10.7
10.6
9.9
1.8
1.8
2.0
. 1.7
3.3
1.5
4.3
3.5
Bay
2.6
3.8
3.3
3.4
4.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
2.3
1.4
2.5
Smog
5.1
3.5
4.0
3.9
2.6
7.4
8.8
8.2
3.5
6.5
7.6
12.2
3.5
Other
16.0
21.8
22.6
20.7
21.9
12.7
13.7
14.3
8.7
6.8
13.0
8.6
3.5
ISJ
in
to
Note: Percents niay add horizontally to more than 10O since categpries are.not mutually exclusive.
-------
Table 7
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POSITIVE ODOR REPORTS BY SOURCE OF ODOR
FOR EACH SYMPTOM
Richmond, 1971
Total Number of Positive Reports
Percent Each Source or Type
Traffic
Burning or Smoke
Refineries
Other Industry
Sulfur
Putrid, Dump, Sewer
Bav
Smog
Other
Don't Know
DON'T KNOW
OR NO ANSWER
1.605
5.0
17.3
2.1
6.7
22.6
8.0
3.1
4.0
14.8
22.0
HEADACHE
20
0.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
20.0
35.0
NOSE
IRRITATION
271
.16.6
19.2
10.7
6.6
17.0
1.5
~> ~>
7.0
14.0
16.2
EYE
IRRITATION
184
12.6
9.8
2.2
12.6
9.3
0.0
1.1
15.3
18.6
31.7
THROAT
IRRITATION
109
20.2
22.0
8.3
9.2
11.0
0.0
0.0
15.6
5.5
19.3
AFFECTS
BREATHING
137
19.7
29.2
8.8
8.0
19.7
~> ">
O.i)
7.3
3.6
19.7
NAUSEA
133
1.6
2.4
0.8
7.9
16.5
14.2
3.1
1.6
48.0
15.7
NJ
U1
Note: Percents mav add vertically to more than 100 since categories are not mutually exclusive.
-------
Table 8
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POSITIVE ODOR REPORTS BY SYMPTOMS REPORTED
FOR EACH SOURCE
Richmond, 1971
Traffic
Burning or Smoke
Refineries
Other Industry
Sulfur
Putrid. Dump. Sewer
Bay
Smog
Other
Don't Know
TOTAL
NUMBER OF
POSITIVE
REPORTS
499
162
388
76
158
467
153
59
116
363
PERCENT
Don't Know
or No Answer
49.4
71.4
43.4
68.4
77.7
83.7
83.1
55.2
65.6
70.7
Headache
0.0
0.3
. 2.6
0.6
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.1
1.4
Nose
Irritation
27.8
13.4
38.2
11.4
9.9
2.6
10.2
16.4
10.5
8.8
Eye
Irritation
14.2
4.6
5.3
14.6
3.6
0.0
3.4
24,1
9.4
11.6
Throat
Irritation
13.6
6.2
11.8
6.3
2.6
0.0
0.0
14.7
1.7
4.2
Affects
Breathing
84.6
103
15.8
7.0
5.8
2.0
0.0
8.6
1.4
5.4
Nausea
78.4
0.8
1.3
6.3
4.5
11.8
6.8
1.7
16.8
4.0
Note: Percents may add horizontally to more than 100 since categories are not mutually exclusive.
-------
Table 9
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POSITIVE ODOR REPORTS BY SOURCE
FOR EACH "AMOUNT BOTHERED" CATEGORY
Richmond, 1971
Ti'tal Number ot Positive Reports
Percent
Traffic
Burning or Smoke
Refineries
Other Industry-
Sulfur
Putrid. Dump, Sewer
Bay
Smog
Other
Don't Know
DON'T KNOW
OR NO ANSWER
198
6.1
7.6
3.5
5.1
8.1
4.0
3.5
3.0
13.1
52.0
NOT
AT ALL
382
6.3
44.8
1.3
1.8
11.5
1.0
1.6
3.1
9.4
22.0
ONLY
A LITTLE
879
6.7
12.6
1.5
8.1
17.6
10.0
2.8
6.6
16.3
22.9
MODERATELY
395
12.2
8.9
4.8
10.4
31.1
7.6
2.3
5.1
14.2
14.4
VERY
MUCH
418
4.5
13.4
7.7
6.9
30.9
5.5
2.9
4.8
24.4
12.9
Note: Percents may add vertically to more than 100 since categories are not
mutually exclusive.
-------
Table 10
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POSITIVE ODOR REPORTS BY AMOUNT BOTHERED
FOR EACH SOURCE
Richmond, 1971
Traffic
Burning or Smoke
Refineries
Other Industry
Sulfur
Putrid, Dump, Sewer
Bay
Smog
Other
Don't Know
TOTAL
NUMBER OF
POSITIVE
REPORTS
162
388
76
158
467
153
59
116
363
499
PERCENT
Don't Know
or No Answer
7.4
3.9
9.2
6.3
3.4
5.2
11.9
5.2
7.2
20.6
Not
at All
14.8
44.1
6.6
4.4
9.4
2.6
10.2
10.3
9.9
16.8
Only
a Little
36.4
28.6
17.1
44.9
33.2
57.5
42.4
50.0
39.4
40.3
Moderately
29.6
9.0
25.0
25.9
26.3
19,6
15.3
17.2
15.4
11.4
Very
Much
11.7
14,4
42.1
1 8.4
27.6
15.0
20.3
17.2
28.1
10.8
Note: Percents may add horizontally to more than 100 since categories arc not
mutually exclusive.
256
-------
Table 11
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POSITIVE ODOR REPORTS BY SYMPTOMS REPORTED
FOR EACH AMOUNT "AMOUNT BOTHERED" CATEGORY
Richmond. 1971
Total Number of Positive Reports
Percent
Headache
Nose Irritation
Eve Irritation
Throat Irritation
Affects Breathing
Nausea
Don't Know
DON'T KNOW
OR NO ANSWER
198
1.0
8.1
5.1
1.5
0.5
1.5
85.9
NOT
AT ALL
382
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.7
ONLY
A LITTLE
879
0.7
13.4
9.2
5.3
6.1
3.6
69.5
MODERATELY
395
2.5
17.5
15.7
6.6
4.6
4.8
61.5
VERY
MUCH
418
0.5
16.3
6.9
7.9
15.3
17.5
48.3
NJ
l/l
Note: Percents may add vertically to more than 100 since categories are not
mutually exclusive.
-------
Table 12
PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF POSITIVE ODOR REPORTS BY AMOUNT BOTHERED
FOR EACH SYMPTOM REPORTED
Richmond, 1971
Headache
Nose Irritation
Eye Irritation
Throat Irritation
Affects Breathing
Nausea
Don't Know
TOTAL
NUMBER OF
POSITIVE
REPORTS
20
271
183
109
137
127
1,605
PERCENT
Don't Know
or No Answer
10.0
5.9
5.5
2.8
0.7
2.4
10.6
Not
at All
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
23.6
Only
a Little
30.0
43.5
44.3
43.1
39.4
25.2
38.1
Moderately
50.0
25.5
33.9
23.9
13.1
15.0
15.1
Very
Much
10.0
25.1
15.8
30.3
46.7
57.5
12.6
258
-------
SECTION VI-H
EVALUATION OF AREA DIFFERENCES IN EXPOSURE
TO TOTAL PARTICULATES, S04 AND N03
IN EACH COMMUNITY STUDIED
Introduction
The Medical Research Council's questionnaire on respiratory symptoms
was used in the population surveys with the provision that particulates,
SO^, and NO^ would be measured in addition to odor exposure since they
could be responsible for subarea differences in respiratory symptoms.
Consequently, concentrations of these pollutants were measured for each
of four quarters for Anderson and Eureka and for three quarters in Carson,
The dates sampled are shown on Tables 1-11, which also give the 24-hour
concentrations. For convenience, these are labeled by quarters (1-4),
Methodology
A non-parametric analysis of variance by ranks (Friedman) was chosen as
the statistical test so as to avoid the effects of possible non-normality
of the observations and occasional extreme values. However, in inter-
preting the statistical findings, the magnitude and direction of dif-
ferences, as well as their consistency over time, were considered.
The hypothesis being tested is that no consistant subarea differences occur
for each pollutant. The results are summarized in Table 12.
Results
Subarea differences ior Anderson were statistically significant at the 5%
level for SO/ for the 3rd and 4th quarters, and for N02 for the 1st quarter,
Area I, which has the highest exposure to odor, has the lowest exposure
259
-------
to SOA and N0» for the quarters showing significant differences, so the
effect should be not to exaggerate health effects, but, if anything, to
lessen or conceal health effects, resulting in a conservative estimate of
these effects. In addition, the differences are of a magnitude not likely
to be reflected in health effects.
In Eureka, subarea differences were statistically significant at the 1%
level for both total particulates and SO^ during the 4th quarter, and
were in the direction which might exaggerate health effects apparently
due to odor. However, these differences, with the possible exception
of SO/, would not appear to be of sufficient magnitude to be of concern.
In Carson, statistically significant differences appear for total particu-
lates (5% level for the 2nd quarter), SO^ (5% level for the 4th quarter),
and NOj (1% level for the 3rd quarter and 5% level for the 4th quarter).
Particulate data are not available for the 4th quarter. The data do not
appear to show large enough consistent differences between areas to
result in significant differences in health effects.
Summary and Discussion
Considering the direction, magnitude, and consistency of the Statistically
significant results, these would not appear to be an appreciable factor in
any health effects observed.
This is shown more clearly on graphs (working copies only, not included here)
260
-------
TABIE 1
HIGH VOLUME AIR SAMPLES ANDERSON
(CONSTITUENTS Of SArtPLt AS UG/M3)
0UARTER1
START DATE
AREA I
^ARTICULATES
AREA I I AREA I II
09/13/71
09/14/71
09/15/71
09/16/71
09/17/71
09/18/71
09/19/71
09/20/71
09/21/71
09/22/71
09/23/71
09/24/71
103.1
92.1
102.9
102.2
109. 0
36
-------
TABI£ 2
HIGH V3LUI1E AIR SAIPLiiS ANDERSON
(CONSTITUENTS OF SAMPLE AS UG/M3)
QUARTER
START DATE
PARTICIPATES
CM
AREA I AREA I I
AREA I I I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
/10/
/ll/
/12/
/15/
/16/
/17/
/13/
/19/
/20/
/21/
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
56
32
25
17
2b
69
ie
52
115
1
. 5
.7
.9
.3
.1
65
23
22
19
30
70
2
-------
TABLE 3
HIGH VOLUME AIR SAMPLES ANDERSON
(CONSTITUENTS UF SAMPLE AS UG/rt3)
START DATE
PARTICIPATES
01
U)
I I
AREA I I I
32
02
02
)2
3^
02
02
02
0^
02
02
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
15/
22
23
25
/
/
/
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
t3
10
4Q
53
57
PC
3c
92
^5
42
3d
.3
.3
. 9
. J
. 3
, 3
->
* _j
. i
.3
.7
m 7
97.
t7.
4rt .
92.
52 .
c, ->
-/ t,
do.
8-*.
4b .
83.
7
I
5
9
3
5
0
3
7
o
53.
3S.
75.
49.
45.
68.
62.
90.
76.
41.
7
5
6
^
5
6
9
8
9
a
504
ARiEA I AREA II AREA III
4. 3
4.9
1.3
3. I
1.4
4.2
6.0
10.7
1.9
1.4
4. a
9.9
13. a
b.2
7.8
4. 1
3.o
9.0
13.4
2.4
1.3
12.5
46 .6
a .4
8.4
9 .0
a. 4
12.6
7.8
4.3
0.7
N03
AREA I AREA II AREA III
2.S
2.6
1 .6
0.4
1. I
1 .4
0.9
1.6
6.5
2.0
1.7
1.6
i .6
1.4
1.1
1. 5
l.fi
5.5
i.9
1. I
1.4
1. 1
1.4
l.l
2.5
5.7
2.5
1.6
1.4
1.8
1.9
-------
TABIfi h
HIGH V3LUME AIR SA1PL.ES ANDERSON
(CONSTITUENTS DF SAMPLE AS UG/M3)
PUAKTER 4
START DATE
KJ
AREA I
35/
05 /
05/
05/
05 /
05/
OP/
057
05/
05 /
OS/
09/
10/
ll/
12/
15/
16/
17/
16/
19/
05/22/
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
28
40
36
69
61
73
25
34
55
42
34
.1
. 5
.1
.6
.2
.0
. t>
.0
.4
.7
.0
PARTICIPATES
AREA II AREA III
+ 2
46
37
65
76
27
32
65
40
45
. b
.1
.7
.7
.9
.7
.3
.4
.4
.3
44. 4
51.9
36.7
91.3
142. 5
29.9
30.4
127.3
110.8
52.0
504
AREA 1 AREA II AREA III
0.7
3.3
1.5
4.5
4.5
4.1
0.7
0.9
2.4
2.4
4.1
S. 6
2.4
2.9
5.1
6.9
2.9
1.6
3.4
0.9
2.9
5.1
3.6
2.4
4.5
6.7
3.6
1.7
5.9
5. 8
3.7
NO 3
AREA I ARtA II AREA III
2.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.9
l.l
0.6
2.0
3.1
£.4
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.6
0.9
0.6
2.0
3.2
1.2
2.6
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.0
0.6
0.8
1.9
2.9
1.9
-------
TABIE'5
HIGH VJLJME AIR SA^IPUiS EURE
-------
TABLE 6
HIGH VGLU1E AIR SAMPLES EUREKA
(CONSTITUENTS Qf: SAMPLE AS UG/M3)
PUARTER2
START DATE
PARTICULARS
AREA I AREA II AREA III
iU/20/ 71
10/21/71
10/22/71
10/26/ 71
10/27/71
10/28/71
10/29/ 71
11/01/71
11 /02/71
11/03/71
73.2
58.7
3C.3
52.1
o9.5
o9.o
58.5
5t>.7
77.9
30. J
54.3
77.0
37.2
5b.O
5*» .9
66 . o
69.3
52.2
76.2
81.6
38.0
56. 5
38.0
41.9
44.8
62.3
62.5
71.9
91.3
S04
AREA I AREA II AREA III
7.3
fi.2
3.8
fi.5
7.5
5.3
5.4
6.1
4.7
5.8
5.2
4.9
5.2
3.1
6.1
5.1
4.2
5.5
6.9
3.5
3.4
5.3
2.7
4.4
6.8
4.8
2.fl
5.2
2.9
NO 3
AREA I AREA II AREA III
2.1
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.5
1.5
2.6
2.2
1.6
1.1
2.0
1.6
0.7
0.5
1.5
1.5
2.7
1.4
1.9
1.8
1.2
1.8
1.1
0.5
1.2
1.5
2.4
1.9
1.8
-------
TABI£ 7
HIGH VJLJME AIR SAMPLES EUREKA
(CONSTITUENTS OF SA.1PL6 AS UG/M3)
QUARTER 3
START DATE
PARTICULATES
A R i A I
AS tA II
AREA III
01
01
Ol
01
01
Dl
02
02
02
/2W
/25/
/26/
/27/
/ 26/
/ 31 /
/Ol/
/02/
/03/
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
25
2C
12
38
b7
77
61
63
57
.7
. . 0
4.9
9.5
3.7
3. fl
9.4
5.8
4.7
4.9
3.6
3.1
4.1
4. 1
10.7
5.9
5 .0
3 .3
2.9
4 .9
6 .4
2 .4
3.0
10.3
5.0
N03
AREA I AREA II AREA II
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.9
1.8
4.4
2.4
3.7
3.3
G.4
0.5
0.5
1.7
1.4
2.6
2.6
4.2
3.6
1.2
0.4
0.6
0.9
3.3
3.4
3.3
3.5
3.8
-------
TABIE 8
HIGH VQLUME AIR SAMPLES EUREKA
(CONSTITUENTS CF SAMPLE AS UG/M3)
PUARTER4
START DATE
AREA I
^ARTICULATES
AREA II AREA I I I
KJ
0*
00
Ot
04
04
04
04
04
Of
04
04
04
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
16/
17/
13/
19/
20/
23/
24/
25/
26/
27/
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
31 ,
119,
101,
75,
43,
33,
70.
73.
72,
t5,
i D
. 3
,0
i 4
,J
,2
i 0
.3
.9
.1
5b
95
77
59
47
27
53
55
60
40
. I
.9
.6
.7
.2
.0
.4
.2
.1
.1
55
92
77
52
40
55
42
4d
57
34
*
3
7
9
9
1
1
0
I
I
1
SQ4
AREA I AREA I I AREA I I I
9.3
9.2
9.9
13.2
13.5
5.0
10.4
11.3
22.
-------
TABIE 9
HIGH V3LUM6 AIR SAMPLES LOS A.SGEL6S 0UARTER2
(CONSTITUENTS OF SAMPLE AS UG/M3)
START DATE
PARTICIPATES
AREA I AP.EA I I AREA I I I
S04
AREA I AREA II AREA III
NO 3
AREA I AREA II AREA III
12/03/71
12/09/71
12/13/71
12/14/71
12/15/71
12/16/71
12/20/71
12/21/71
12/22/71
12/23/71
23
-------
TABI£ 10
HIGH VJLUMc AIR SAMPLES LOS ANGELES
(CONSTITUENTS OF SAMPLE AS UG/f13»
START OAT£
E A I
^ARTICULATES
AREA I {
A Rc A III
NJ
vj
o
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
/'J6/
/07/
/Oo/
X09/
/13/
/14/
/15/
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
I
1
1
1
2
1
77
03
32
2*>
oC
2p
91
.2
, 5
.2
. 3
.1
.«?
. *
L
i
2
1
So.
94.
00.
fal.
00.
35.
6
5
1
7
0
5
62
82
165
123
io2
199
200
.7
.9
.5
.5
.2
.3
.6
SCH
AREA I AREA II AREA III
29.5
2*. &
36.0
15.4
26.4
39.7
<6.4
55.4
37.1
39.9
20.8
39.4
44.7
56.3
57.4
42.3
40.6
13.4
39.3
60.3
43.d
N03
AREA I AREA II AREA III
4.1
6.3
5.8
7.9
t.2
4.1
2.9
1.4
3. a
7.3
7.6
3.4
1.6
l.L
1.0
4.4
3. a
5. a
2.1
l.d
1.6
-------
TABXE IX
HIGH VJLUNE AIR SAMPLES LOS ANGELES
(CONSTITUENTS 0- SAMPLE AS UG/M3)
KJ
START DATE
05/0 I/ 12.
05/02/72
J5/03/72
05/On/72
35/03,' 72
05/09/72
05/ 10/ 72
05/ 11/72
05/15/72
05/16/72
PARTICULATES
NOT AVAIIA3LE
S04
AREA I AREA II AREA III
NO 3
AREA I AREA II AREA III
19.7
21.3
17.3
1 3.0
5.3
I }.&
lb.5
25.0
31.5
15.2
21 .9
21 .d
22.3
15.2
3.8
10.8
22.3
27.3
32.2
19.7
16.1
23.4
16.5
9.3
4.9
12.0
16.0
22.4
15.6
9.3
a.i
6.7
4.7
3.3
5.5
7.4
8. A
3.6
5.9
9.6
9.4
7.5
6.5
3.6
8.2
10.5
11.5
3.1
4.5
9.3
6.9
6.5
3.2
4.4
6.7
9.9
3.3
5.4
-------
Table 12
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY RANKS FOR SUBAREAS
TOTAL PARTICULATES, 804, NO3
ANDERSON, EUREKA, AND CARSON
Anderson
Total Participates
SO4
NO3
Eureka
Total Particulates
SO4
NO3
Carson
Total Particulates
SO4_
NO3
TOTAL
NS
**
*
* *
* *
NS
+
NS
NS
QUARTER
I
NS
NS
*
NS
NS
NS
-
-
-
II
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
*
NS
f +
Hi
NS.
*
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
t
IV
NS
*
NS
**
**
NS
*
NS
* Significant at 5% level.
*+ Significant at 1% level.
- No data available.
Note: NS represents not significant at the 5% level.
272
-------
SECTION VI-I
THE MEASUREMENT OF ODOR CONCENTRATION
BY DYNAMIC OLFACTOMETRY
AIHL METHOD NUMBER. 25A
Scope
This method is intended for the determination of odor concentration
in the atmosphere or source emissions in the ppb range in terms of a
specific odorant (sp. odtO, i.e., methyl mercaptan, fr^S, etc. This is
accomplished by using at least two trained and calibrated observers oper-
ating a dilution apparatus called the "Dynamic Olfactometer". (Note 1)
Principle
In this method the odor is measured at the odor threshold (O.T.)
while the odorant is being introduced to a stream of deodorized air. The
concentration of the odor can then be calculated from the dilution factor
(D.F.) and odor threshold of the observer.
Range and Reliability
The range for ambient atmospheric sampling is from 2 to 1200 dilutions
and for captured gas sampling, 2 to 300,000 dilutions.
The reliability of the olfactory measurements has been determined to be
130%.
Inlerferenc.es
Physiological conditions such as respiratory infections and allergic
reactions int.erferc with the observer's olfactory perception. Psycholo-
gical stress such as irritating noises, and elevated temperatures also
fffect the observer's perception.
273
-------
No. 2|i>-A
Reagents (reagent grade;
1. Activated charcoal, 8-10 mesh.
2. Silica gel - 8-10 mesh.
3. Ethyl alcohol 95%.
A. Pyrex glass wool.
Apparatus
1. Dynamic Olfac.tometer (Figure 1).
a. Pump - carbon vane pump, Cast model 1531.
b. Flowmeters-
Two each with Fisher Porter designations and range of flow as
follows:
(1) #08F-1/16-08-5736 (3-A30 ml/min)
(2) #02F-1/8-10-5/36 (7-2,100 ml/min)
(3) #2F-1/4-20-5 (70-18,000 ml/min).
c. Two Deodorizing Columns - 16 in. long.
Pyrex glass tubes 1lj in. diameter.
(1) End outlets, S 45/50 joint end cap.
Packing 1 in. of glass wool; fill to the top of the
joint with activated charcoal; fill the cap with glass
wool and secure to the packed tube with springs.
(2) Side outlets with a Teflon lid end cap.
Packing - 1 in. of glass wool, 8 in. of activated char-
coal, 1 in. of glass wool, 5 in. of silica gel; fill with
wool and secure cap with a screw-type compression fitting.
d. 300 ml surge chamber.
e. Primary dilution chamber modified 30 ml midget impinger.
274
-------
No. 25-A
f. Five outlet cyclone mixing chamber (10 in. long).
g. Teflon 3-way stopcock.
h. 4-way switching valve (S.S.).
i. S.S. fine metering valves (Nupro) (3 each).
j. S.S. course metering valves (Whitey)(4 each).
k. Inhalation mask - Hudson Disposable #9 Plastic oxygen mask
with 4 ft. of 1/8 in. I.D. thin wall Teflon tubing.
1. Sampling Probe - 3/16 in. I.D. , 1/4 in. O.D. Teflon tubing.
2. Assembly for Captured Sample (Figure 1).
a. Pressure vessel (20 liter capacity).
b. Tedlar Bags (See Note 2).
c. Pump - (capable of maintaining 10 psi press).
d. Metering valve - coarse (Whitey).
e. 2-way Teflon stopcock.
f. 30 psi gauge.
3. Assembly for Standardization (see Note 3).
a. Small gas cylinder (16 liter).
b. Pressure regulator.
4. Miscellaneous Tubing.
a. Jj in. I.D. Tygon.
b. % in. O.D. Pyrex glass.
c. ^ in. O.D. Teflon
5. Assembly for Chemical Sampling.
a. Midget Impinger.
275
-------
No. 25-A
Procedure - (Refer to Figure 1)
1. Calibration of observers (odor threshold determination).
a. Connect deodorizing column 1 to the sampling probe at !].
b. Connect gas cylinder to olfactometer at inlet I-j.
c. Set stopcock S-j so that the total airflow will be directed
through the primary dilution chamber and split with part of
the air directed through deodorizing column 2 and the other
part diverted to V^.
d. Open valves V-j, \^ and V, completely. Close valves V-j, V^
and V$, then start the carbon vane pump.
e. Adjust valves V-j and V^ to give a flow through F^ at a rate
of 12 1/niin.
f. To minimize back pressure in the system, adjust V-j to a posi-
tion that does not reduce flow below 12 1/min through F^.
g. Open valve. V^ completely wj th distributing valve S~ open to
flowmeter F^. Adjust valve Vg so that the readings on F^
and F6 are equal.
h. Close valve V^ and set S2 for F_.
i. Turn on standard gas and regulate to 10 psi. Adjust valve
V.j to obtain a flow through F^ sufficient to exceed the observer's
O.T. when the flow through F^ is sot at midrange.
j. Close V and connect inhal ation mask at 0-j , place over nose
and mouth of the. observer, and acclimate him to the deodorized
airflow.
k. Gradually open valve V^ until odor is perceived.
276
-------
No.
25-A
1. Record flowmeter readings on F , F and F .
m. Repeat odor threshold determination two more times. Three
odor threshold determinations constitute a calibration.
n. Calculation:
F1 F3
O.T. as ppb of sp. odt. = ppb standard sp. odt. ( --- - x -- )
F6+F3 F+F3
where O.T. = odor threshold
sp. odt. = specific odorant
P.. = Flow of assayed sp. odt. through flowmeter
P.. , ml/min.
F- = Flow of diluted sp. odt. through flowmeter
Fo, ml/min.
F, = Flow of deodorized air through flowmeter
o
Fg , ml/min.
The O.T. of each measurement is calculated and the average
threshold determined for the observer. In practice, this is
done twice daily for each observer while making odor measure-
ments .
2. Odor concentration measurements in the ambient atmosphere.
a. Shut off standard gas cylinder and close valve V^.
b. Disconnect deodorizing column at IH and standard gas cylinder
at I3.
277
-------
No. 25-A
c. Turn S so that part of the airstream is diverted through the
sampling leg.
d. Extend the sampling probe into the atmosphere and adjust
valve V0 so that the flow through F is equivalent to 12 1/min.
/ 6
e. Gradually open valve V/ , diverting the ambient sample through
F, , Fo> or FA' until ambient odor is perceived.
f. Record the reading of F2> Fg or F^ and Fg at perception.
g. If no odor is perceived, the readings on FA and F should be
H 6
the same.
h. Each ambient determination constitutes a measurement.
i. Calculation:
F6+Fn
D.F. = -
Fn
Where F^ = Flow of deodorized air through flowmeter F , ml/min.
F = Flow of ambient air through the appropriate flow-
meter, F_, F0 or F , ml/min.
^ J 4
C = O.T. x D.F.
D.F. = Dilution Factor.
O.T. = Odor Threshold in terms of the calibrating odorant.
C. = Concentration of odor in terms of the calibrating
odorant.
278
-------
3. Captured gas analysis by olfactometry.
'a. Connect deodorizing column 1 to sampling probe at 1^.
b. With stopcock So closed, connect sample bag inside pressure
vessel.
c. For samples requiring dilutions less than 1200, connect pres-
sure vessel to 12 with stopcock S closed.
d. F.or samples requiring dilutions greater than 1200, connect
pressure vessel to Io with stopcock S1 open to the primary
dilution chamber.
e. Open stopcock S., and pressurize vessel to 7 psi.
f. Proceed as with the ambient analysis at step 5.
g. Calculations:
(1) Same as ambient analysis for dilutions less than 1200.
(2) For dilutions greater than 1200,
D.F. .
F
n
where D.F. = Dilution Factor.
l\ = Flow of deodorized air through flowmetcr F , tnl/min.
D D
F.J = Flow of sample air through flowmetcr F^ , ml/min.
F = Flow of diluted sample air through the appropriate
n
flowmeter, F , F- or F, , ml/min.
279
-------
No. 25-A
4. Captured gas chemical analysis.
a. Use the same system as for olfactometry analysis with the sample
connection at !.
b. Connect midget impinger at 02-
c. Adjust to desired flow rate on F^, F_ or F and F,. and F^.
d. Calculations:
D.F. = x
P Fr
n ->
Where D.F. = Dilution Factor.
Fg = Flow of deodorized air through flowmeter Fg, ml/min.
Fn = Flow of sample air through the appropriate flowmeter,
F2, F or F^, ml/min.
F^ = Flow of diluted sample air through flowmeter
Fc, ml/min.
C = D.F. x ^7
where C = Concentration in captured gas sample, Ml/1.
X = pi of gaseous compound being analyzed in impinger.
V = Volume of diluted sample air collected, liters or,
(F,-, ml/mln x time sampled, min.)
1000 ml/1
280
-------
No. 25-A
Notes
1. Selection of Observers:
a. Observers' odor thresholds should agree within ± 1 ppb.
b. Observers should perceive the odor with the same psychological
response, i.e., pulp mill odor is disagreeable.
2. The materials used for sample bags are evaluated in AIHL Reports
# 73 and 80.
3. Preparation of standard gas - The odorant is placed in an evacuated
cylinder, diluted and pressurized to 500 Ibs/in^ with nitrogen.
Assay by an appropriate procedure (i.e., for methyl mercaptan, see
(AIHL recommended method 23).
281
-------
Back pressure bleed
Sampling probe
FIGURE 1
DYNAMIC OLFACTOMETER
Cyclone mixing chamber
I Deodorizing column l"')
Surge
chamber -o
KJ
CO
NJ
Pressure vessel
Primary
dilution
chamber
Deodorizing column 2
Standard
odorant
Inhalation
mask
S^ 3-way stopcock
82 4-way switching valve
83 2 -way stopcock
vlf v2, v6, v7
coarse metering valves
V3- V4- V5
fine metering valves
Flowmeters
FI, F2 (3-430 ml/min)
F, F (7-2100 ml/min)
4>
(70-18,000 ml/min)
Inlets
0^ - outlet to mask
02 - outlet for chemical
sampling
-------
SECTION VI-J
THE MEASUREMENT OF MALODOH IN A COMMUNITY BY DYNAMIC OLFACTGMETRY*
George H. Zanders, Russ.ell A. Umbraco,
Su7Anne Twist; and Peter K. Mueller, Ph.D.
Associate, Ar,:;Lf;tant Public Health Chemists,
Re.'ioarch Assir.tant and Chief, respectively
Air and Industrial Hygiene laboratory, Laboratory CJervi ces
State of Cull Torn La Department of Public Health, Berkeley
INTRODUCTION
Reproduced from
best available copy.
Method;: which have been used to evaluate malodor in air pollution
problems have been previo'usly reviewed (l). Various aspects of static
and dynamic olfactometry have partly been discussed by Lindvall (2).
Nader (3) described an interesting arrangement for dynamically deter-
mining malodor concentrations in the atmosphere on the basis of
dilution measurements.
To evaluate a specific malodor problem arising from the emission
of organic sulfur gases from kraft pulp mills an analogous dynamic
olfactometer was developed and described by one of us independently (k]
The purpose of this paper Is to describe our method, its reliability
and its application to measure the frequency of occurrences and con-
centration of malodor in different areas of a community (5,6).
DYNAMIC OLFACTOME'J.'RY
A mobile system has been devised by which the concentration "f
nulcxlor can be measured directly in the ambient air or in a captured
r.ample from a point source. The ambient odor concentrations were
determined by dynamic olfactometry for which the details ar.e described
in Recommended Method No. ?5-A.
presented at the Conference on "Methods for Measuring and Evaluating
Odorous Air Pollutants at the Source and in the Ambient Air"
Stockholm, June 1-5, 1970.
283
-------
Hie concentration of the malodor is quantitatively expressed with
reference to a known concentration of the major gas in the malodor,
by a group of observers whose odor thresholds have been calibrated
for this gas. Methyl mercaptan (CEbSH) was used as the calibrating
gas for the observers because it was a major constituent of the malodor
emissions, and it also has the lowest median odor threshold (0.8 ppb) (?)
in the mixture of malodor gases being emitted.
The system is so arranged that an individual breathing a stream
of deodorized air at constant rate is challenged with the introduction
of a stream of malodorous air into the odorless air until the malodor
is perceived. The ratio of the rate of the malodor air to the rate
of odorless air is the dilution factor (D.F.), which is a function of
the odor concentration in the malodor stream. The concentration of
malodor (c), is expressed in ppb as CH3SH. This is the product of the
dilution factor and the observer's odeiL threshold (O.T.), as described
in the procedure contained in the appendix. (Recommended Method 25-A)
The olfactometer was placed into a large station wagon for
mobility. The observer was isolated from the environment by keeping
the vehicle window closed. The sampling probe was a Teflon tube
protruding from the vehicle six inches above the roof, upwind from the
tail pipe. Characteristic car exhaust gas odors were never detected.
RELIABILITY
The reliability of malodor concentrations is a function of the
variations in odor thresholds of individual panel members and in the
determination of dilution factors. The lowest detectable odor concen-
tration is the odor threshold of the most sensitive observer, 0.3 ppb
CH3SH in this study.
284
-------
Each observer's odor threshold (O.T.) was determined each morning
and afternoon from three successive one minute tests on a known concen-
tration of CH3SH. The average of the three -tests constituted a oulibnu lev-..
The variation within these calibrations was utilized to obtain an estimate
of the reliability of our procedure.
Using each calibration we calculated for each individual and a
composite of all observers the mean odor threshold, the median coefficient
of variation of the calibrations and the 95$ confidence intervals about
the mean odor threshold. These values are given in Table I. The number
of calibrations differed from observer to observer and each observer made
about 22 field tests for each calibration. Thus, observers number I and II
made about 75$ of all the field tests.
The mean odor threshold varied from 0.68 for observer number III to
l.lU ppb CH3SH for observer number I. The median coefficient of variation
ranged from 11.^7$ for observer number I to 28.70$ for observer number IV.
However, the overall median coefficient was 13-3U$ and was not affected
substantially by observer number IV.
The 95$ confidence intervals ranged from 13-3$ of the mean O.T. for
observer number I to ^3.0$ for observer number IV- For all the study periods
and all observers the 95$ confidence interval was 26.8$ to 20.8$ for all
observers wi thout observer number TV. Both observers number I and III were
smokors. They did not smoke within 30 minutes prior to making a test.
Observer number IV experienced nasal congestion part of the time, but
expediency precluded eliminating his participation.
The results of a two-way analysis of variance using time of day
(a.m. vs p.m.) and date for each individual are shown in Table II. Only
one observer (number II) showed no significant time of day or date differences.
The other three- observers showed significant interactions, that is, time of
rim/ differences were not constant over all days.
285
-------
One observer showed time of day differences, one showed date differences,
and one showed both. The significance of date differences is compensated
for by the use of separately determined odor thresholds for each day.
The time of day differences are partly compensated for by use of separate
morning and afternoon odor threshold determinations.
Having determined the reliability of the O.T. determination per se
a question remains concerning the transfer of this information to estimate
the determination of malodor concentration (c) in the community. This
is calculated by:
C = O.T. x D.F. (1)
where D.F. is the dilution factor- In the calibration tests to determine
O.T., the dilution factors ranged from 10 to 200. In the test to determine
community malodor, D.F. varied within the same range. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to assume that the same percentage range of variability present
in the O.T. determination would also be present in the D.F. measurement.
Rewriting equation (l) we can express this as:
C + (e x C) = (O.T. + K x O.T.) x (D.F. + K x D.F.) (2)
where X is 26.8$, the percentage of O.T. and D.F. calculated from the
range of the 95$ confidence interval. While we have not yet rigorously
solved for e in equation 2, we have estimated the measured malodor con-
centrations to be within j_ 50$ with at least 90$ confidence [(95$)2].
The more rigorous estimate of the variability of D.F. and resulting
concentration, could be obtained by panel members with similar O.T.a
making tests simultaneously on the same ambient air samples.
STUDY DESIGN
The study took place in a Northern California coastal city with
a population of 30,000. Tine sources of the malodor were two pulp mills
286
-------
located on a peninsula west of the city on the ocean side. The pre-
vailing wind pattern from April to November is northwest. The average
wind velocity is 12-15 aph between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. During the rest
of the 2k hour period it is less than 5 mph.
To characterize the malodor pattern for the community, three areas
were chosen within the community to represent high (Area I), medium
(Area II), and low (Area III) malodor exposure. The locations of the
three areas with respect to the sources of malodor are shown on the map
(Figure l). They were approximately equal in socioeconomic status to
avoid bias.
Malodor tests were made on a total of ?h days during three months
(June, July and August 1969) while the prevailing wind pattern was
from the northwest. Each month tests were conducted on eight days, in
two consecutive weeks from Monday noon to Friday noon spanning the
daylight hours 0800 to 1700. The areas were sampled in intervals begun
on the hour an.l half hour. Malodor tests required approximately one
minute each with sampling of the area complete in 15 minutes. Traveling
time between areas was 10 minutes.
A malodor panel of six trained observers was chosen, four regular
observers ?.nd two for relief. The regulars were calibrated with C-I^GH
before and after each day's sampling. The relievers were calibrated at
their time < >f par Li cipation -- a total of ."!('> calibration::. (!'ocau.;i- «f
thoir limited participation those calibrations were excluded from Mie
previous analysis of reliability of O.T. determinations.) The ma.l"il"r
tests at each sampling site were made by each of two observers, 'ilie
observer';" morning O.T. wa:; used to calculate the morning malodor con-
centrations, while the afternoon concentrations were based on the after-
noon O.T.
287
-------
To obtain a representative sampling of each area, a
sailing site, and alternating secondary sites were selected. This
was done to obviate assuming that a single site would be representative
of an area. Areas I and II had three secondary sites, while Area II
had two secondary sites because of its smaller size.
In each sampling interval, Area I was sampled four times, Area II
six times and Area III eight times. The greater number of tests in
Areas II and III were chosen in order to detect the expected lower
frequencies of malodor occurrence.
In Area I the two observers made one test each at the primary
and secondary sites, while in Area III each observer made two tests
at each of the two sites. In Area II the sequence was a little more
complex. At the primary site, observer one made two tests and observer
two made one test in the first sampling interval. Then, at the secondary
site observer one made one test and observer two made two tests. In
successive sampling intervals the test sequence roles of the two observers
were interchanged.
The distribution of the number of tests in each area is shown by
site and by morning and afternoon in Table III. A total of 2,538 tests
were made. One half of the total number of measurements in each area
were made at the primary site. The remaining number of measurements
in each were divided almost equally between the secondary sites. This
gradation of the number of measurements in the respective areas war;
designed to account for the dilution of malodor due to increasing
distance from the point sources. The design of the sampling protocol
did not take into detailed consideration dispersion factors influenced
by meteorology and topography. The primary site was also used for
288
-------
obtaining two hour chemical measurements for total mercaplans and
hydrogen sulfide. But these measurements turned out to be unsuitable
for comparison with the malodor tests.
MALODOR FREQUENCY
The distribution of malodor frequencies for the entire :;tud.y pcr.i"d
is given by area, site within each area for morning and afternoon ami
the entire day in Table IV. The data in this table establishes very
clearly malodor frequencies in Areas I through III decrease from hi^h
to low thereby validating the study protocol. Generally, the range of
malodor frequencies among sites within each area did not overlap among
the three areas.
from the results obtained at each site in Area I, it can be seen
that secondary sites 2 and 3 experienced about hO% greater malodor frequency
than the designated primary site. It should be noted that site 2 wa::
one block south of the primary site and was centered in Area I. Sites
0 and 1 were situated on the edge of the populated area at a slightly
lower elevation than either .sites 2 or 3-
Since sites 2 and 3 were slightly higher in elevation and denser
in population than sites 0 and 1, the higher malodor frequency at sites
2 and 3 could be explained by the following:
a. Higher elevation, when sufficiently close to the source,
such as was Area J, allows the high altitude emissions to
contact the ground with greater frequency.
b. In areas of dense population, where airflow is restricted due
to existing structures, malo&r tends to linger allowing the .same
nalakr to be detected over an extended period of time.
289
-------
Area II shows a more uniform distribution of malodor frequency with
respect to both time of day and sampling site. The entire Area II was a
typical residential area of moderate population and was situated on level
ground. The three sampling sites in Area II were physically alike in
most ways, which explained their rather uniform malodor frequency.
In Area III the secondary sites had a somewhat greater malodor
frequency than the primary site. The primary site was situated in a
school parking lot with unobstructed areas adjacent to two sides of it
allowing free air circulation. Sites 2 and 3 were in areas of relatively
moderate population density which tends to restrict airflow, thus allowing
malodors to linger. Site 1 was peculiar in that while being on the same
level as the other sites, it had a low population density and was situated
on the edge of a large field containing grass, weeds and shrubs. We found-
that in this case, as the sun came through the fog and vaporized the dew
on the vegetation, we perceived more malodors, thus giving us a high mal-
odor frequency.
The afternoon malodor frequency for Area I was twice that of the
morning. This was due to the wind increasing and changing direction
late in the morning and carrying the malodor inland over Area I and the
rest of the community. (See map (Figure l) for prevailing afternoon wind
patterns.) Area III showed a pattern of malodor frequency analogous to
Area I with respect to morning and afternoon.
The diurnal changes in malodor frequency are given in Table V
for each of the three areas. This data is presented graphically in
Figure 2. In Area I there was a higher frequency of malodor occurrence
in the afternoon. However, the change in malodor frequency from one
sanpling interval to another after 1300 was considerably greater than
290
-------
the changes observed before 1JOO. ujmilarily in Areas II and III the
changes between adjacent sampling intervals increased considerably after
1^00. For all three areas there was a relatively un.i Ton:; :r.aledcr fiv.'i-ioiw
between the hours of 1000 and 1300. The nature of these fluctuation:- In
malodor frequency during the day are consistent with the meteorological
observation that atmospheric instability increased i.n thi:; area after
lllOO. During periods of decreased stability rnalodoi- from the plume .L;
more likely to reach ground level by convection. These diurnal variations
in air motion lead to expectations of some fairly wide fluctuations in
malodor concentration in the afternoon.
MALODOR CONCENTRATION
The range of malodor concentrations observed during the study,
is given in Table VI by area and by time of day. In Area I the maximum
concentrations ranged from about 6 to 250 ppm CHsSH. In Area I.I the
maximum concentrations ranged during the day from essentially 0 to 171 ppb.
In Area III the maximum concentrations ranged from essentially 0 for
almost half the sampling intervals to 23 ppb CH^GH late in the afternoon.
Thus, there was a substantial difference in the maximum malodor concen-
trations experienced in the three areas. In accordance with the odor
frequency patterns the largest fluctuations in concentrations were
observed in all areas in the afternoon.
The malodor concentrations below which a certain proportion of the
observed measurements occurred are given in Table VII by time of day and
by area. The 75th and 92nd percentiles arc given for.Area 1. Only
the 92nd percentiles are given for Areas L'L and 111 bcc-ausc, as war. shown
in Table V, the malodor frequency was generally less than 25$ in Areas IT
and III. The 92nd percentile happens to be the median po.int of the overall
malodor frequency (15.6$) observed for all areas and sanpling intervals
291
-------
during this study. The 92nd percentile columns show the concentrations
which were exceeded 8% of the time. Consistent with the maximum malodor
concentration pattern, the 92nd percentile columns show a range of con-
centration which was greatest for Area T, intermediate for Area IT and
lowest for Area III-
These diurnal concentration fluctuations show an overall pattern
graphically illustrated in Figure 3. Figure U shows the expected diurnal
malodor patterns in terms of relative concentrations based on casual
observations and malodor complaints received by the local health depart-
ment during the summer season in recent years. Figure 3 shows that the
observed patterns coincide with the expected for Areas I and III. Howeverj
the observed patterns for Area IT are quite different from that expected.
This discrepancy demonstrates the importance for systematically and
objectively evaluating malodor occurrences in a community. However, the
diurnal malodor concentration pattern for all three areas combined (Figure 5)
again resembles a composite of the expected diurnal malodor patterns.
From these measurements we have shown that subjective responses by
individuals in a community are adequate indicators of the overall extent
of a malodor problem. The importance of systematic and objective studies
is to determine the degree of control necessary at the source to reduce
the malodor to an acceptable level in the community. The acceptable levels
depend on attitudes in the community and can be determined by an objective
community reaction study. Such a study was conducted simultaneously in
Areas I, II and III during August of 1969 and is to be reported by
Dr- Erland Jonsson and co-workers (5).
292
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
A method has been developed to mear.ure the concentration and
occurrence of malodor:; .in a community. The measurements are madt? by a
panel of trained observer.-, utilizing a porla"b]e dynamic1 olfaclomotor.
We have shown a malbdor concentration test by a single observer to be
reliable within +_ 50$.
This method has been applied to s tu d y objectively a maledcr
problem created by emissions from kraft pulp mill:;. The measurements
were made in areas where the malodorr; occur thereby exposing the observers
to environmental conditions experienced by the people in the community.
Diurnal differences in areas of the community at different distances
downwind from the sources are described. In line with expectations the
areas furthest from the sources had the lowest malodor concentrations and
the least number of malodor occurrences. By the use of this method we
were able to demonstrate a diurnal pattern for each area and an overall
pattern which was indicative of experience in the community.
The ability to systematically and objectively obtain information
on malodor has been established. It is now possib]e to make decisions
concerning acceptable levels and to establish the degree of control
needed at the source to attain such levels.
293
-------
1. Duffee, R. A. "Appraisal of Cdor Measurement Techniques"
J. APCA 18:^72-7^ (July 1968).
2. Lindvall, T. "On Sensory Evaluation of Odorous Air Pollutant Intensities"
Nordisk, Hygienisk Tidskrift, Suppl. 2, National Inst. of Public Health,
Stockholm, Sweden (197P).
3. Nader, J. S. "An Odor Evaluation Apparatus for Field and Laboratory Use"
J. AIHA 12:1-7 (Feb. 1958).
k. Sanders, G. S. "Odor and Dynamic Odor Msasurement" presented at,
10th Conference on Methods in Air and Industrial Hygiene Studies (1969).
5. Jonsson, E., Margaret Deane, George Sanders "Community Reactions to
Odors from Pulp Mills -- A Pilot Study in Eureka, California" presented
at the Conference on Methods for Measuring and Evaluating Odorous Air
Pollutants at the Source and in the Ambient Air, Stockholm, June 1-5» 1970,
6. Goldsmith, John E., M.D. "A Suggested Odor Scaling System" presented
at the Conference on Methods for Measuring and Evaluating Odorous Air
Pollutants at the Source and in the Ambient Air, Stockholm, June 1-5, 1970.
7. Wilby, F. V. "Variation in Recognition Odor Threshold of a Panel"
J. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 1£:96-100 (.1969).
294
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Much collaboration was received from many individuals to make t':::.-
study possible. Among these Drs. E. Jonsson and J. Goldsmith provided
much advice on study design. Miss M. Deane was most helpful with the
analysis of the data. Mr. J. Koslow provided assistance with the field
testing and data presentations. Mr. J. Shapiro and Miss P- Scott of
Antioch College.provided data reduction services. Mr. R. Graul provided
valuable assistance with project management and manuscript editing.
Some facilities were made available by Humboldt County Air Pollution
Control District and Humboldt State College. The study was partially
supported by the California Air Resources Board and by contract //86-68-35
from the National Air Pollution Control Administration.
295
-------
TABLE I
MEASUREMENTS OF VARIABILITY IN ODOR THRESHOLD
Observer
I
II
III
IV
Overall
Less KC
Overall
Mean O.T.
ppb CH3SH
1.14
0.86
0.68
1.01
0.92
0.94
Number of
Calibrations
25
51
9
18
85
103
Median Coeff.
of Variation
%
11.47
13.34
15.51
28.70
12.39
13.34
95% Confidence Interval .for
Mean Odor Threshold
Range (ppb) ±% of Mean (K]
0.99-1.29
0.66-1.06
0.45-0.91
0.57-1.44
0.73-1.11
0.69-1.19
13.3
23.4
33.4
43.0
20.8
26.8
TABLE II
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
F-Ratios for Each Observer
Test
Date Difference
A.M. -P.M. Difference
Interaction
Observer
I II
27.00* 0.46
0.50 0.34
4.00* 0.17
III
1.25
5.50*
9.25*
IV
7.70*
12.87*
2.71*
*Significant at the 5% level
296
-------
TABLE III
NUMBER OF MALODOR TESTS
3y Area, Site*, and Time of Day
Sine Site
080C to 1159 All sites
0
1
2
3
1200 to 1659 All sites
0
1
2
3
0800 to 1659 All sites
0
1
2
3
Area I
256
ll*0
1*2
1*1*
30
308
168
1*0
41*
56
561*
308
82
88
86
Area II
381*
210
72
102
_-_
1*62
252
123
8?
81*6
1*62
195
189
Area III
512
280
88
72
72
616
332
8U
100
100
1128
612
172
172
172
All Areas
1152
630
202
218
102
1386
752
2Vf
231
156
2538
1382
1*1*9
W9
258
* Site 0 Primary sampling site
1 First secondary sampling site
2 Second secondary sampling site
3 Third secondary sampling site
---No malodor tests conducted
7Q7
-------
TABLE IV
MALODOR FREQUENCY*
By Area, Site**, and Time of Day
Time
0800 to
1200 to
0800 to
Site
1159 All sites
0
1
2
3
1659 All sites
0
1
2
3
1659 All sites
0
1
2
3
Area I
23.4
23.6
9-5
29.5
33-3
49.0
42.9
50.0
65.9
53-6
37.4
34.1
29.3
47.7
46.5
Area II
13-5
12.4
13-9
15-7
M M
14.5
16.3
12.2
12.6
""""'
14.1
14.5
12.8
14.3
Area III
3-5
2.1
3.4
6.9
5.6
8.0
6.0
14.3
6.0
11.0
5-9
4.2
8.7
6.4
8.7
All Area a
11,3
10.3
8.1*
15.6
13.7
19-3
17.7
19.0
19.9
26.3
15.6
14.3
14.3
17.8
21.3
* Number of malodor detections as a percent of total odor tests
** Site 0 Primary sampling site
1 First secondary sampling site
2 Second secondary sampling site
3 Third secondary sampling site
No malodor tests conducted
298
-------
TAULE V
DIURNAL MALODOR FREQUENCY*
BY AREA AND TIME
Sampling Interval
Be [am At
0800
0830
0900
0930
1000
1030
1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
i4oo
1430
1500
1530
1600
1630
Area I
of
JO
12.5
.12.5
25.0
37.5
21.9
31.3
31.3
15.6
37.5
28.6
71.9
, 37.5
78.6
56.3
43.8
57.2
65.7
Area II
2.1
6.3
27.1
10.4
0.0
12.5
27.1
22.9
18.8
14.3
22.9
18.8
23.8
2.1
22.9
2.4
0.0
18.8
Area III
0.0
4.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
9.4
7.8
7.8
6.3
9.4
3.6
0.0
28.2
1.8
0.0
20.3
0.0
^Number of malodor detections as a percent of total odor U;r,1.
299
-------
TABLE VI
MAXIMUM MALODOR CONCENTRATION DETECTED*
BY AREA AND TIME
(as ppb CHsSH)
Sampling Interval
Begun At Area I Area II Area III
0800
0830
0900
0930
1000
1030
1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
lUoo
ll*30
1500
1530
1600
1630
*In each case the concentration ranged from none detected
to the maximum shown.
N.D. - none detected which means less than 2 x minimum
O.T. of the observer - essentially 0.
8.9
12.9
ll.l*
52.5
59.2
6.1*
2l*.7
5.6
10.1
38.6
33.3
19.7
28.1
2l*9.6
1*7.1
16.6
26.0
239. ^
l*.l*
2.1*
28.2
3.8
N.D.
38.9
5.5
16.5
31.2
2.9
5.0
170.7
23.9
0.9
12.6
1.2
N.D.
16.1
N.D.
5.1
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
3.2
2.1*
5.6
J-f*
6.0
7.1
l.l*
N.D.
21.9
1.6
N.D.
23.1
N.D.
300
-------
TABLE VII
DIURNAL MALODOR CONCENTRATION AT GIVEN PERCENTILES
BY AREA AND TIME
(as ppb CH3SH)
Sampling
Interval
Begun At
0800
0830
0900
0930
1000
1030'
1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
itoo
llflo
1500
1530
1600
1630
Area
75th
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
i-9
N.D.
2.5
1.3
N.D.
2.6
1.8
9.2
2.6
9.2
5.7
h.h
7.7
7.0
I
92nd
5.8
5.8
2.9
5.5
h.k
2.U
12.1
3.3
U.O
15.8
5.5
17.2
ll.U
30.3
lU.3
8.7
9.6
12.3
Area II
92nd
N.D.
N.D.
12.7
l.k
N.D.
17.1
3.5
8.1
2.3
1.9
2.5
7.0
2.2
N.D.
5.6
N.D.
N.D.
3.9
Area III
92nd
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
1.6
1.9
0.5
N.D.
1.8
N.D.
N.D.
5.6
N.D.
N.D.
5.6
N.D.
All Ar>
92nd
N.D.
N.D.
3.2
1.9
1.5
1.9
3.9
M
2.1
3.1
2.8
10. h
2.7
9.2
7.1
2.9
7.7
7.0
,D. - none detected, essentially 0.
301
-------
Figure 1
MALODOR STUDY LOCATION MAP
Ul
o
NJ
/ Prevailin
« summer wind
Scale 1:62500
1 2
miles
-------
figure 2
DIURNAL MALODOR FREQUENCY BY AREA
80
70
Area I
N Area II
Area III
60
50
w
\~s
B
t>
O*
w
05
OEj
O
Q
O
40
30
20
10
0
TIME OF DAY
303
-------
GO
CO
CO
o
8 10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 3
OBSERVED DIURNAL MALODOR PATTERN BY AREA
32 r
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
Area I
Area II
Area III
8
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
TIME OF DAY
304
-------
Figure 4
EXPECTED DIURNAL MALODOR PATTERN
fc
o
M
8
8
TIME OF DAY
305
-------
CO
o
co 12
10
8
6
4
2
0
g
H-t
H
O
g
o
Figure 5
OBSERVED DIURNAL MALODOR PATTERN FOR ALL AREAS
18
16
14
8
10 11 12 13
TIME OF DAY
14 15 16 17
306
-------
SECTION VII-A
EUREKA-1969
(Annoyance Reactions)
I.D.
Date
Interviewer
Introduction
I'm
_from the Stat"^ Human Relations Agency. We
are making a survey on how people feel about the coomunity in which they live. I
would like to ask you some questions about where you live and work.
Address
Census Table
Educator.
House- Mari-
hold tal
Member Age Sex Status Occupation Work Place
I . F.
Spouse
Child 1
Child 2
Child 3
Child 4
Child 5
_«_«.. <
CO
w
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C/j
X
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
w
o
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
<<
oa
4
4
4
4
4
4
U
4
4
4
4
4
Ask marital status, occupation, work place, and education only for adults and for
children at least 17 years old.
307
-------
Respondent
61 Sex 1 M. 2 F.
Marital 63 1 NM 2 M 3 W 4 D/S
62
Occupation
Mill
Location
Education
Husband Wife
64 1 B.C. 2 W.C. 3 P. 65 I B.C. 2 W.C. 3 P.
66 1 Yes 2 No 67 1 Jf^s 2 No
681 2 34 69 1 2 3 4
70 1 E.S. 2 H.S. 3 C.E. 4 B.A. 71 1 E.S. 2 H.S. 3 C.E. 4 B.A.
Household Size
Total No.
No. of Children
less than 6
6-16
Adults
72 12345678 9+
73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+
74 1 2 3- 4 5 6 7 8 9+
75 12345678 '9+
308
-------
3.
Caru Wo. L
I.
)
3.
1
2
3
6
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
I
2
3
1,
5
Ask. only If not obvious (pnecfe. type of dwelling unit) .
Do you live in:
a single house
a row bouse (town house)
an apartment house with less than 5 apartments
an apartment house with more than 5 apartments
trailer?
other
How many rooms are there in your home?
How M.any bedrooms are there ih your twne?
Does this include all the rooms used
regular Lv for sleeping?
[Number of married couples plus number of single people "]
(From table on p. I)
[Determine code from table.]
What hours during the week days are you usually in your home?
Codes: Between 8:00 A.M. - '.J:00 P.M.
between - I 1 3 hours
and between - 2 T - fa
If "oth..'r", s.jrh ar traveler, 3 7-9
working iliornalJ shifts,
cxolain ncrc U 10 - 12
5 other
309
-------
Cara No. L
How Lonf a time have you Lived in Eureka?
How Lori£ a time have you lived in this residential area?
How Long a time have you Lived in this house? Years
L Same house b«fore puLp miLls cam"
2 Same residential area but different house
3 Eureka but different residential brt-i
k Moved into residential area after
pulp mi Lls came
8
6
In general, how do you feel about Living in this residential area?
Do you rate it as -an-:
good
fair
poor?
D.K. (Don't know)
What are some of the things you Like about Living around here -
things that you feel are advantages or that make this a good
place to Live?
Nowadays, it is seldom that a residential area has advantages
only. What about the things you don't Like here? Would you
say there is:
nothing at all you don't Like
a few things or
many things?
D.K.
310
-------
Cai-1 No. L
t.
)
10.
11.
12.
L3
13
13
13
L
2
3
k
I
2
0
1
2
3
U
L
2
0
L
2
3
U
What are some of the things you don't like about living here?
odor from pulp mills
odor from pulp mills and air pollution or noise or other pollutio
air pollution or noise or other pollution (without mention of
pulp mills)
other (without mention of any of the above)
Have you ever felt like moving away imm this residentia^ area.'
Yes
No
O.K.
When you have felt Like moving away, what has the reason hr-tn?
odor from puLp mills
odor from pulp mills ana air pollution or noise or otnur pc^i-uujon
air pollution or noise or otner pollution (without mention o;
pulp mills)
other (without mention of any of the above)
If you could find a similar apartment (houso) which would not,
be more expensive in another residential area, would you like
to move there?
Yes
No
D.K.
Why would you like to do this?
odor from pulp mills
odor from pulp mills and air pollution or noise or other pollution
air pollution or noise or other pollution (without mention of
pulp mills)
Other (without mention of any of the above)
311
-------
6.
Card No. L
13-
13
15
Is there anything here in the community that you think is harmful
for you or your family?
Yes
No
D.K.
What is this?
odor from pulp mills
odor from pulp miLls and air pollution or noise or other pollution
air pollution or noise or other pollution (without mention of
pulp mills)
other (without mention of any of the above)
15-
16.
17
17
Here are a few problems which different communities are facing.
How would you rate each of these for Eureka today in terms of '
serious, somewhat serious, or not serious?
Outbreaks of contagious diseases, such as whooping cough, diphtheria,
etc.
serious
somewhat serious
not serious
D.K.
Do you know if there are any local or state authorities attempting
to correct this problem?
Yes. What authority?
No.
D.K.
312
-------
Card No. 1
17.
18.
19.
20.
21,
T"i
23.
19
19
21
21
2k
2k
1
2
3
0
L
2
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
0
I
2
3
0
L
2
1
2
0
Water pollution
serious
somewhat serious
not serious
D.K.
Do you know if there are any local or state authorities atteiiptir.j
to correct this problem?
Yes. What authority?
No
D.K.
Noise in the community or residential area.
serious
somewhat serious
not serious
D.K.
Do you know if there are any local or state authorities at-temptln^;
to correct this problem?
Yes. What authority?
No.
D.K.
Air pollution.
serious
somewhat .serious
not serious
D.K.
What kind of air pollution are you thinking of?
Odor from pulp mills
Other
Do you know if there are any local or state authorities atte-nptin<_<
to correct this problem?
Yes. What authority?
No.
D.K.
313
-------
6.
Card No. 1
2k.
25.
26.
27.
28.
2o
26
29
29
1
2
3
0
I
2
0
L
2
3
L
2
3
L
2
3
0
Are there any other problems you think are serious or somewhat
serious for Eureka?
serious
somewhat serious
not serious
D.K.
Do you know if there are any Local or state authorities attempting
to correct this problem?
Yes. What authority?
No.
D.K.
Ask this question only if a "serious
response has been given to at Ipast
Have you ever thought of requesting,
" or "somewhat serious"
one of the questions 15-25.
or have you actually requested
some authority or. agency to take action concerning any of these
problems, e.g., by writing or phoning an official, signing a petiti
or attending a meeting? If so, what
Q 26 Pulp Mill
"type of
Action Requested Thought of No
Writing or
phoning 123
an official
Signing a
petition 123
Attending a
meeting 123
Do you think this request has given
Yes, has given
Yes, might give
No
D.K.
problem was it?
Odors Q 27 Pulp-Mi-il-Odor-a-or
Other
Requested Thought of No
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
or will give ar\y results?
314
-------
I will now ask some questions about
Have you
some sources of noise and air pollution that
noticed
here at home
during the last
three months?
Card 1 Yes Ho
Traffic noise 1 2&
(29)
Aircraft noise 1 2a
w (33)
Ul
Noise from industries
What industries?
1 2a
(37)
1 2
(1*1)
1 2a
(1*5)
Other kinds of noise
What noise?
1 'I*
(53)
1 2
(57)
O.K.
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
a
0
How often?
Is
it
1 every day
2 at least once a
week
3 at least once a
month
h less often?
0 Don't know
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 3
(30)
2 3
OW
2 3
(38)
2 3
(1*2)
2 3
(U6)
2 3
(50)
2 3
(5W
2 3
(58)
1*
h
1*
k
k
k
k
h
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
may exist
Would you say it
has bothered you
1 only a little
2 moderately
3 very much
h not at all?
0 Don't know
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 3
(3D
2 3
(35)
2 3
(39)
2 3
(1*3)
2 3
(1*7)
2 3
(5D
2 3
(55)
2 3
(59)
k* oa
I*3 0S
h* oa
1 a r\a
U 0
l*a oa
ha oa
Ua o*
. & 3
h o
in nost cities.
How often has it
bothered you? Is it
1 almost every time
2 about half the
time
3 less often?
0 Don't know
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 3
(32)
2 3
(36)
2 3
(1*0)
2 3
(liU)
2 3
(Ii8)
2 3
(52)
2 3
(56)
2 3
(60)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
U)
Have you
noticed
here at home
during the last
three months?
CardJ. Yes No O.K.
Dust or soot from
industries
What industries?
1 2a
(61)
1 2a
(65)
1 2a
(69).
Card 2
Odors from industries
What industries?
Pulp mills (if mentioned
spontaneously)
1 2a
dl
1 2
(5)
1 2
(9)
Smoke from tepee burners 1 2a
(13)
Oa
0s
oa
oa
oa
oa
0*
How often?
Is
it
1 every day
2 at least once a
week
3 at least once a
month
U less often?
0 Don't know
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 3
(62)
2 3
(66)
2 3
(70)
2 3
(2)
2 3
(6)
2 3
(10)
2 3
(1U)
U
ll
U
U
U
U
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Would you say it
has bothered you
1 only a little
2 moderately
3 very much
U not at all?
0 Don't know
1
1
1
lb
1
1
1
2 3
(63)
2 3
(67)
2 3
(71)
2C 3C
(3)
2 3
(7)
2 3
(11)
2 3
(15)
a A
Ua oa
Ua oa
Ua oa
Ua,b0a,b
lta Oa
Ua oa
Ua Oa
How often has it
bothered you? Is it
1 almost every tiine
2 about half the
time
3 less often?
0 Don't know
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 3
(6U)
2 3
(68)
2 3
(72)
2 3
(1»)
2 3
(8)
2 3
(12)
2 3
(16)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Ul
Have you noticed
here at home
during the last
three months?
Card 2 Yes No O.K.
Other kinds of air
pollution
What air pollution?
1 2a Oa
1 12a Oa
1 <^ oa
(25)
How often? Is it
1 every day
2 at least once a
week
3 at least once a
month
h less often?
0 Don't .know
1 2 3 U 0
(18)
1 2 3 U 0
(22)
1 2 3 U 0
(26)
Would you say it
has bothered you
1 only a little
2 moderately
3 very :nuch
lt not at all'.'
0 Don't know
1 2 3 Ua Oa
(19)
1 2 3 Ua Oa
1 2 3 Ua Oa
(27)
How often has it
bothered you? Is it
1 almost every ti~«e
2 about half the
tine
3 less often?
0 Don't know
1230
(20)
1230
(2U)
1230
(28)
a Skip to next source.
After question 28 skip to question 53 (Card 2), but give this introduction:
Sore people here in Eureka have been complaining about odors from the pulp mills.
c After question 23 skip to question 33 (Card 2).
-------
12.
25.
Card No. 2
1
2
0
(Ask questions 29-32 only If the respondent has not already mentioned
odor before.)
Some people here in- Eureka have been complaining about odors
from the pulp mills.
Here in your house have you noticed the odors during the last
three months?
Yes
No
D.K.
3C
1
2
3
4
0
How often have you noticed them? Is it
every day
at least once a week
at least once a month
or less often?
D.K.
31
1
Z
3
A
0
Would you say that the odors have bothered you? (If yes)
How much) is it
only a little
moderately
very much.?
not at all
D.K.
32
1
2
3
0
How often has it bothered you? Is it
almost every time you notice it
about half the time
less often?
D.K.
318
-------
Cord no. 2
13.
33-
31.
35.
36.
37.
36.
39.
liO.
111.
12.
1*3.
Ut.
as.
l»6.
1^7.
Ii8.
U9.
T bothered
D.K.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
to
52
53
53
L
2
3
0
You ijaid the odors have bothered ,rou . i)o you think it's better,
worse, or the sane this sunnier as last surjner?
Better
Worse
The same
D.K.
319
-------
111.
Card i'o. 2
Do you think it'si because there is less odor or because you
have become used to it?
33 l Less odor
<>3 2 Used to it
>3 a O.K.
52. Do you think it's because there is more odor or because you
are more sensitive to it?
1 More odor
2. More sensitive
0 D.K.
If you consider advantages and disadvantages for the people in
Eureka in having the pulp mills, do you think it is good or bad
to have the pulp mills here?
1
2
0
Good
Bad
O.K.
51 Can you tell roe about your general opinion about the problem of
odor? Do you think that odors in general are
1 very annoying
2 annoying
3 not too annoying
4 not annoying at all?
0 O.K.
1
2
3
0
Do you think, you are
more sensitive than other people to odor
less sensitive Chan other people to ©dor
or about the same?
O.K.
320
-------
15.
Card No. 2
56.
57.
£B.
59.
60.
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
h
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
Do you think neople here in Eureka have
a Creator problem with odor than othor cities of its size
a smaller problem with odor than other cities of its size
about the sane?
O.K.
We have also talked some about noise. Do you think noise
in general is
very annoying
annoying
not too annoying
not annoying at all?
D.K.
Do you think you are
more sensitive than other people to noise
less sensitive than other people to noise
or about the same?
D.K.
Do you think people here in Eureka have
a greater noise problem than other cities of its size
a smaller noise problem than other cities of its size
or about the same?
D.K.
Do you think the authorities are too inuch concerned about air
pollution, too little concerned about air pollution, or as much
concerned as they should be?
Too much
Too little
As much
D.K.
321
-------
16.
Card No. 2
al.
1
2
3
0
Do you think the authorities are too much concerned about noise.
too little concerned about noise, or as much concerned as they
should be?
Too much
Too little
As much
D.K.
322
-------
SECTION VII-B
EUREKA-1971
(Annoyance and Health Reactions)
I.D. _ Date_
Interviewer
Introduction
I'm _ ., from the Statp Human Relations Agency. Wo
are making a survey on how people feel about the community in which they live. I
would like to ask you some questions about where you live and work.
Address_
r
Census Table
House- Mari-
hold tal w w w H
Member Age Sex Status Occupation Work Place M _x o ta
I. ?. 1234
Spou3e 1234
Child 1 1 2 3 A
Child 2 1234
Child 3 1234
Child 4 1234
Child 5 1234
1234
__ 1234
._ 1234
__ 1234
1234
Ask marital status, occupation, work place, and education only for adults and for
children at least 17 years old.
323
-------
2.
Respondent
61 Sex 1 M. 2 F.
Marital 631NM 2M 3W A D/S
62
Occupation
MiU
Location
Education
Husband
64 I B.C. 2 W.C. 3 P.
66 1 Tea 2 No
68 1 2 3 4,
70 1 E.S. 2 H.So 3 C.E. 4, B.A.
Wife
65 1 B.C. 2 W.C. 3 P.
67 1 Ifcs 2 No
69 1 2 3 t.
71 1 E.S. 2 H.S. 3 C.E. 4 B.A.
Household Size
Total No.
No. of Children
leas than 6
6-16
Adults
72
73
74
75
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3 4
3 4
3 4
3 4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
A
8
8
9+
9+
9+
9+
324
-------
3.
Car.J Ho. L
L.
I
2
3
4
5
6
Agk only If not obvious Ceheck type of dwelling unit) ,
Do you Itve in:
a single house
a row house (town house)
an .apartment house with less than 5 apartments
an apartment house with more than 5 apartments
trailer?
other
1
2
3
4
5
I
2
3.
How many rooms are there in your home?
How i.any bedrooms are there iii your home?
Does this include all the rooms used
regularly for sleeping?
[Number of married couples plus number of single people_
(From table on p. l)
[Determine code from table.]
What hours during the week days are you usually in your home?
Codes: Between 8:00 A.M. - .J:00 P.M.
between -
and between -
If "oth^r", 3-ich a: traveler,
working altornatvj shifts,
explain
I ^3 hours
2 5-6
3 7-9
U 10-12
5 other
325
-------
4.
ll.
Card No. L
3
li
How Lonr a time have you Lived in Eureka?
How LOIIJ: a time have you Lived in this residential area?
How Ions a tirno have you Lived in this house? Years
L Samp house before puLp mills cam'?
2 Same residential area but different house
3 Eureka but different residential area
k Moved into residential area after
puLp nulls came
In general, how do you feel about Living in this residential area?
Do you rate it as -an-:
L
2
3
0
good
fair
poor?
O.K. (Don't know)
What are some of the things you Like about Living around here
things that you feel are advantages or that make this a good
place to live?
7.
L
2
3
0
Nowadays, it is seldom that a residential area has advantages
only. What about the things you don't Like here? Would you
say there is:
nothing at all you don't Like
a few things or
many things?
O.K.
326 &
-------
Car I Ho. L
I.
).
10.
u.
12.
13
Lj
13
13
I
2
3
1*
L
2
0
L
2
3
It
I
2
0
1
2
3
k
What arc some of the things you don't like about living here?
odor from pulp mills
odor from pulp mills and air pollution or noise or other pollutioi
air pollution or noise or other pollution (without mention of
pulp mills)
other (without mention of any of the above)
Have you ever felt like moving away I'rnm this residentiau area.'
Yes
No
O.K.
When you have felt like moving away, what has the reason h^tn?
odor from pulp mills
odor from pulp mills anj air pollution or noise or otn<--r pc.iiut.ion
air pollution or noist: or otner pollution (without mention 01
pulp mills)
other (without mention of any of the above)
If you could find a similar apartment (houso) which would not
be more expensive in another residential area, would you like
to move there?
Yes
No
D.K.
Why would you like to do this?
odor from pulp mills
odor from pulp mills and air pollution or noise or other pollution
air pollution or noise or other pollution (without mention of
pulp mills)
Other (without mention of any of the above)
327
-------
i-3-
15
15
CarJ No. I
Is there anything here in the community that you think is harmful
for you or your family?
L Yes
2 No
0 D.K.
What is this?
odor from pulp miLls
odor from pulp mills and air pollution or noise or other pollution
L
2
3
air pollution or noise or other pollution (without mention of
pulp mills)
other (without mention of any of the above)
15.
Here are a few problems which different communities are facing.
How would you rate each of these for Eureka today in terms of
serious, somewhat serious, or not serious?
16.
Outbreaks of contagious diseases, such as whooping cough, diphtheria,
etc.
1 serious
2 somewhat serious
17 3 not serious
17 0 D.K.
Do you know if there are any local or state authorities attempting
to correct this problem?
I Yes. What, authority?
2 No.
0 D.K.
328
-------
7.
Card No. L
17.
18.
19.
20.
2L.
>1
23.
19
L9
21
21
2't
2»«
I
2
3
0
L
2
0
L
2
3
0
L
2
0
L
2
3
0
L
2
L
2
0
Water pollution
serious
somewhat serious
not serious
D.K.
Do you knew if there are any local or state
to correct this problem?
Yes. What authority?
No
D.K.
Noise in the community or 'residential area.
serious
somewhat serious
not serious
D.K.
Do you know if there arc any local or state
to correct this prcblem?
Yes. What authority?
No.
D.K.
Air pollution.
serious
somewhat serious
not sorious
D.K.
What kiml of nil pollution nr»> you thinking
Odor from pulp mills
Other
Do you know if ther*- aro any local or state
to correct this problem?
Yes. What authority?
No.
D.K.
authorities attempting
authorities attempting
of?
authorities attetiptin".'.
329
-------
Card No. L _____
2k.
25.
26.
27.
28.
2o
26
29
29
1
2
3
0
L
2
0
L
2
3
I
2
3
L
2
3
0
Are there any other problems
serious for Eureka?
serious
somewhat serious
not serious
O.K.
Do you know if there are any
to correct this problem?
yes. What authority?
No.
D.K.
Ask this question only if a "
response has been given to at
you think are serious or somewhat
local or state authorities attempting
serious" or "somewhat serious"
lf>ast one of the questions 15-25.
Have you ever thought of requesting, or have you actually requested
some authority or agency to take action concerning any of these
problems, e.g., by writing or phoning an official, signing a petiti
or attending a meeting? If so, what problem was it?
Q 26 Pulp Mill Odors Q 2? Pulp~MHl~Odor.s-.or
Other
Type of
Action Requested Thought of No Requested Thought of No
Writing or
phoning L 231 2 3
an official
Signing a
petition L 2
Attending a
meeting I 2
Do you think this request has
Yes, has given
Yes, might give
No
D.K.
31 23
31 23
given, or will give arvy results?
330
-------
U)
U!
I will now ask sone questions about
Have you
some sources of noise =nd air pollution that.
noticed
here at tone
during the last
three months?
Card 1 Yes No
Traffic noiae 1 2a
(29)
Aircraft noise 1 2a
(33)
Noise from industries
What industries?
1 2a
(37)
1 2
(Itl)
1 2
(15)
Other kinds of noise
What noise?
1 2
(U9a
(£3)
1 2
(57)
O.K.
oa
oa
oa
oa
a
0
oa
oa
a
0
How often?
Is
it
1 every day
2 at least once a
week
3 at least once a
month
b less often?
0 Don't know
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 3
(30)
2 3
(31*)
2 3
(38)
2 3
(1*2)
2 3
(16)
2 3
(50)
2 3
(51*)
2 3
(50)
1*
1*
1*
1*
h
Ij
1*
1*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
may exist
Would you say it
has bothered you
1 only a little
2 moderately
3 very much
k not at all?
0 Don't know
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 3
(3D
2 3
(35)
2 3
(39)
2 3
(1*3)
2 3
(1*7)
2 3
(5D
2 3
(55)
2 3
(59)
Ua oa
l,a oa
Ua oa
ha oa
a 3
1* o
i,a oa
l*a o"
a a
Ua oa
in nost cities.
How often has it
bothered you? Is it
1 almost every time
2 about half the
time
3 less often?
0 Don't know
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 3
(32)
2 3
(36)
2 3
(1*0)
2 3
(1*U)
2 3
(1*8)
2 3
(52)
2 3
(56)
2 3
(60)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
u>
U)
Card 1
Dust or soot from
industries
What industries?
Card 2
Odors from industries
What industries?
Pulp mills (if mentioned
spontaneously)
Have you noticed
here at home
during the last
three months?
Yes No D.K.
How often? Is it
1 every day
2 at least once a
week
3 at least once a
month
k less often?
0 Don't know
Would you say it
has bothered you
1 only a little
2 moderately
3 very much
It not at all?
0 Don't know
How often has it
bothered you? Is it
1 almost every time
2 about half the
tine
3 less often?
0 Don't know
Smoke from tepee burners
1 2a
1 (1a
1(12
(69).
1 2a
(1)
1 2
(5)
1 2
(9)
1 2a
(13)
Oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
oa
o3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
-(62)
3
(66)
3
(70)
3
(2)
3
(6)
3
(10)
3
(111)
1*
U
u
u
u
il
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
i
i
ib
i
i
i
2 3 1* Oa
<63) a a
2 3 l*a Oa
(67) a a
2 3 U Oa
(71)
c c a,b a,b
<3> a °a
2 3 li Oa
<7> a a
2 3 Ua Oa
(11)
2 3 Ua Oa
(15)
l
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 3
2 3
(68)
2 3
(72)
2 3
U)
2 3
(8)
2 3
(12)
2 3
(16)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
U)
U>
Have you noticed
here at home
d'^rin^ the last
three months?
Card 2 Yes No D.K.
Other kinds of air
pollution
What air pollution?
1 2a Oa
1 2a Oa
(211 a
1 2a Oa
(25)
How often? Is it
1 every day
2 at least once a
week
3 at least once a
month
k less often?
0 Don't know
1 2 3 U 0
(18) '
1 2 3 U 0
(22)
1 2 3 U 0
(26)
Would you say it
has bothered you
1 only a little
2 moderately
3 very nuch
li not at all?
0 Don't know
1 2 3 lia Oa
(19)
1 2 3 li Oa
1 2 3 Ua Oa
(27)
How often has it
bothered you? Is it
1 almost every tine
2 about half the
tine
3 less ofton?
0 Don't know
1230
(20)
1230
1230
(28)
Skip to next source.
After question 28 skip to question 53 (Card 2), but give this introduction:
Sons people here in Eureka have been complaining about odors fron the pulp mills.
After question 28 skip to question 33 (Card 2).
-------
12.
Crrd Ho. 2
(Ask questions 29-32 only if the respondent has not already mentioned
odor before.)
Some people here in Eureka have been complaining about odors
from the pulp mills.
>3
1
2
0
Here in your house.have you noticed the odors during the last
three months?
Yes
No
D,K,
30,
1
2
3
I.
0
How often have you noticed them? Is it
every day
at least once a week
at least once a month
or less often?
D.K.
Would you say that the odors have bothered you? (If yes)
How much; is it
1
2
3
li
0
only a little
moderately
very much?
not at all
O.K..
3
0
How often has it bothered you? Is it
almost every time you notice it
about half the time
less often?
D.K.
334
-------
13.
Card llo.
50
«
52
53
53
L
2
3
0
You said the odors have bothered /ou . Do you think it's better,
worse, or the sane this summer as last summer?
Better
Worse
The same
O.K.
335
-------
u*.
Card :To. 2 ____
Do you think it's because there is less odor or because you
have become used to it?
33 1 Less odor
53 2 Used to it
D.K.
52. Do you think it's because there is more odor or because you
are more sensitive to it?
1 More odor
2- More sensitive
0 D.K.
If you consider advantages and disadvantages for the people in
Eureka in having the pulp mills, do you think it is good or bad
to have the pulp mills here?
1
2
0
Good
Bad
D.K.
Can you tell me about your general opinion about the problem of
odor? Do you think that odors in general are
1 very annoying
2 annoying
3 not too annoying
4 not annoying at all?
0 D.K.
Do you think you are
1 more sensitive than other people to odor
2 less sensitive than other people to odor
3 or about the same?
0 D.K.
336
-------
15.
56.
Card Ho. 2
1
2
3
o
Do you think people here in Eureka have
a greater problem with odor than othor cities of its size
a. smaller problem with odor than other cities of its size
about the sane?
D.K.
57. We have also talked some about noise. Do you think noise
in general is
1 very annoying
2 annoying
3 not too annoying
not annoying at all?
D.K.
1
2
3
0
Do you think you are
more sensitive than other people to noise
less sensitive than other people to noise
or about the same?
D.K.
1
2
3
o
Do you think people here in Eureka have
a greater noise problem than other cities of its size
a smaller noise problem than other cities of its size
or about the same?
D.K.
60.
1
2
3
0
Do you think the authorities are too much concerned about air
pollution, too little concerned about air pollution, or as much
concerned as they should be?
Too much
Too little
As much
D.K.
337
-------
16.
Card No. 2
51.
1
2
3
0
Do you think the authorities are too much concerned about noise,
too little concerned about noise, or as much concerned as they
should be?
Too much
Too little
As much
D.K,
338
-------
17.
SECTION B
Use the actual wording of each question. Put X in appropriate square after each question. When in doubt record 'No '.
PREAMBLE I am going to ask you some questions, mainly about your chest. I should like you to answer
'YES' or 'NO' whenever possible. Cat.d ,
COUGH
1. Do you usually cough first thing in the morning [on getting up* j? PI PI
Count a cough with first moke or on first going out of doors. Exclude clearing throat or a T». i.
tingle cough.
3. Do you usually cough during the day - or at night? ' »
Ignore an occasional cough. I I LJ
If 'No* to both questions 1 and 3, go to question 6.
If 'Yes' to either question 1 or 3:
5. Do you cough like this on most days [or nights*] for as much as three months r~l r~l l~~l
each year? I I LJ LJ
7 To l« It
PHLEGM
6, Do you u:,u*iiy bung uj> iny phicgm from your chest first tiling in the morning .. j
| on getting up*]? j~ J Q 4
Count phlegm with the first smoke or on first going out of doors. Exclude phlegm from the T "
note. Count swallowed phlegm.
8. Do you usually bring up any phlegm from your chest during the day - or at night? ' __I
Accept twice or more. ' I I I
r T«« !
If 'No* to both questions 6 and 8, go to question 12a.
If 'Yes* to either question 6 or 8:
*
. Do you bring up phlegm like this on most days [or nights*] for as much as three ' * ,-L.
months each year? I _ | | _ ( | _ I
' T«« « 11
10
* For subjects who work at night.
12a In the past three years have you had a period of [increased*] cough and phlegm
lasting for three weeks or more?
If 'No' to question 12a, go to question Ilia
If'Yes'to question 12»: T...t ,.,., jj ,
I2b/c. Have you had more than one such period? T..-S ««r« r~~|
* For subjects who usually have phlegm. »»» LJ
339
-------
18.
BREATHLESSNESS
9
14a. Arc you troubled by shortness of breath when hurrying on level ground or »»»!« t |~j
walking up a slight nill?
If 'No* to question 14a, go to question 21 ' II
If 'Yet' to question 14a:
14b. Do you get short of breath walking with other people of your own age on ..». f~J
level ground? L~J
If 'No' to question 14b, go to question 21
If 'Yes' to question 14b:
14c. Do you have to stop for breath when walking at your own pace on level »..,. PI
ground?
f Doubled from walking by any conditions other than heart or Lmf disease. T..-«. | [
CHEST ILLNESSES
21. During the past three years have you had any chest illness which has kept ij
you from your usual activities for as much as a week? * II
If 'No' to question 21, go to question 22.
If 'Yes' to question 21:
' 21a. Did you bring up more phlegm than usual in any of these illnesses? **L1 *
If 'No' to question 21a, go to question 22.
If 'Yes' to question 21a. i in..["""] a
21b. How many illnesses like this have you had in the past three years? ,
-------
19.
I am going to read you a list of symptoms and I should like you to tell
me whether you have each one frequently, occasionally or hardly ever.
How often do you
have
V.'ould you say yo>
have it frequent
occasionally, or
hardly ever?
Nervousness
Headache
Sleeplessness
Dizziness,
nausea or
vomiting
Constipitation
Pain in
joints
Diff icul-hv i n
<1«J»X^ J.WUJ* U V J_l*
urinating
Sinus congestion
Eye irritation
Burning or
irritation of
the nose
Runny nose
Chest pains
? i
i /
A*
i
n
i
D
,
n
n
j
n
i
n
j
n
* *
i
n
t
n
n
j
n
,
D
/ ,
^7
0
r
2
D
2
D
2
D
n
,
n
2
n
2
n
2
n
2
n
n
2
a
2
n
i
-^ i
tu
£
/
3
a
3
a
3
a
3
*
a
3
a
3
a
3
c
3
a
a
3
a
3
n
p /
&^/
'//
/
33
34
35
36
38
39
40
42
43
45
46
47
WoiLLd you say that your health la gene]
Excellent Q (1)
Good D (2)
Fair D (3)
Poor? D (U)
Don't know PI (O\
AAJJA V IU1WH ^J \ W /
27.
Have you worked for a year or more in
a dusty job?
X OB i-__* \ X }
No D (2)
Total number of years in dusty JQ 51
iob, n n
us
-------
20.
TOBACCO SMOKING
55a. Do you smoke?
Record ' Yes' if regular smoker (as defined
in question 55k) up to one month ago.
If 'No' to question 5Sa, ask
question 55b.
If'Yes' to question 55a:
Do you inhale the smoke?
Would you say you inhale the smoke
slightly (S), moderately (M), deeply
(D)?
How old were you when you started
smoking regularly?
How many manufactured cigarettes
do you usually smoke per day?
How much tobacco (oz/g) do you
usually smoke per week in hand-
rolled cigarettes?
How much pipe tobacco (oz/g) do
you usually smoke per week?
How many cigars do you usually
smoke per week?
... ,* ; ,. . :i ...,
55b. Have you ever smoked as much as
one cigarette a day [or one ounce of
tobacco a month] for as long as a
year?
If 'No' to question 55b, go to
question 56.
If 'Yei' to question 55b:
How old were you when you started
smoking regularly?
How old were you when you last
gave up smoking?
How many manufactured cigarettes
per day were you smoking before
you gave up?
How much tobacco (oz/g) per week
were you smoking in hand-rolled
cigarettes before you gave up?
How much pipe tobacco (oz/g) per
week were you smoking before you
gave up?
How many dears per week were
you smoking before you gave up?
Specify large (L) or small (S).
nn
r» no
an
Tom Mo
naa
8 II D
par vorklng
d.j
DD
T.. K.
. . Jtirt eld
par torklnc
CODING FOR SMOKING HISTORY
Before coding refer to instructions.
Smoking history f__
Never smoked I '
Ex-smoker ' '
Present smoker - does not i i
inhale LJ '
Present smoker - inhales . ,
slightly . LJ 4
Present smoker - inhales i i
moderately 1 1
Present smoker - inhales , >
deeply U 9
Type of smoker
Cigarettes only 1 1
D- i n *
Pipe only < 1
Cigars only 1 1
1.1. r~~i 4
Cigarettes and pipe/cigars 1 1
Cigars and pipe LJ *
VT 1 I 1 «
Non-smoker | |
Amount smoked per day* (average
including weekends)
Cigiiette tolvcco:
Nil D '
1-4 g D"
5-14 g D '
15-24 g D 4
25-34 g Q
35 g or more [ | a
Pipe/cigar tobacco:
Nil 1 1 >
: 1-4 g D «
i 5-14 g ' Q 3
1 Q 1A ew { 1 4
1->-^'* g | 1 *
25-34 it I 1«
" Jt g j | s
35 g or more f~"] o
* i oi of pipe tobacco =28 cigtrettes=28 g
1 small cigar " 2 cigarettes
1 large cigar * S cigarettes
Age started C^odeOO ^ ^
Age stopped Code 00 £8 59
lvp,^\ if a present [ [ [_J
^years; smoker ^"^ ^~^
52
53
54
55
342
-------
SECTION VII-C
ANDERSON-19 70-INTERVIEW
(Health Reactions)
HKALTH QUESTIONNAIRE
SKPTFMBER, 1970
H.-f,irfif: ' ''' ;> '' ..! I'd' hi'^hlct oj instructions should be rc.it/. OATF or BIBTH
Card 2
DAY MONTH "MAR
51-56
57-62
M F
(ivi-.v v i. <
(Card* 1 & 2} 76^79
Card 1 col BO code 1
63
i _'
S M W
I . Surname « First Name
Lto
i long have you lived at this address?
70-71
* long have you lived In this residential area?
72-73
CIVIL STATE
i 2 n
OCCUPATION , ,
INDUSTRY
D
NAME OF INTERVIEWER , .
Blink
64
65
56
67
ee
69
|.>v i/ii .irtiu/ Hording of each question. Put X in appropriate square after each question. When in doubt record 'No'.
REAMBI.E I am poing to ask you some questions, mainly about your chest. I should like you to answer
'YES' or 'NO* whenever possible.
COUGH
i 2
On vuii usually cou^h first thin"; in rho morning Ton optfino up*] ' . .
(.'on nt u ((ii^/i u'l'i'i first intake or on first going out of doors. Exclude clearing throat or a Y«» "°
single cdtigli.
1 Do vein uviiiilly cough dLirint; the day - or at night?
Ignore un occjwnal CI'N^/I.
II 'No' to botli questions 1 and 3, go to question 6.
If 'Yes' to either question 1 or 3:
5. Do you cough like this on most days [or nights*] for as much as three months
i a
an
Y«> Ho
D
jjHII-.GM
6. Do you u.sti.ilK bi mi; up any phlegm from your chest first thing in the morning
| on getting up '| ?
Count ;I/I/I^.H u-iili the fir.
-------
Page 2
12a In the PJ..E ilnxe years ha\e you h.id a period of (increased*] cough and phlegm i. PH i
lasting for three wccki or more?
It 'No' to question 12a, go to question 13.
II 'Yes'to que.Mioii 12.i: ..
I2b/c Have you h;id mure tiian one such period?
' Tn-Z »r Bur* I 1
* for subjects ir'io usually lava pWf£m. »«« II
8
13. Have you ever coughed up blood? | ] »
11 'No' to question 13, go to question 14j.
If'Yes'to question 13: "" * *"* 7**r II
13a. Was this in the past year? T..-..I i. p..t I I ,
J»«r l_J
BREATHLESSNESS
_ 9
14a. Are you troubled by shortness of breath when hurrying on level ground or Di»«bi.« t [ | i
walking up a slight hill?
->. I1 3
If 'No' to question 14a, go to question 15a. II
If 'Yes' to question 14a:
14b. Do you get short of breath walking with other people of your own age on -(,. [~] a
level ground?
If 'No1 to question 14b, go to question 15a.
If'Yes' to question 14b:
14c. Do you have to stop for breath when walking at your own pace on level i..0. r~j 4
ground? ^""^
t Disabled from walking by any conditions other than heart or lung disease, T * - «. [ | a
WHEEZING
10
* I I
15a. Does your chest ever sound wheezing or whistling?
If 'No' to question ISa, go to question 16a.
T... but D.t ...I f 1 j
If 'Yes' to question 15a: d.j. [.r nigbt. | I I
15b. Do you get this most days - or nights? (or num.] I I
16a. Have you ever had attacks of shortness of breath with wheezing? *° *tt«»>« | [ ,
If 'No* to question 16a. go to question 17.
If 'Yes' to question 16a: NO I I t
16b. Is/was your breathing absolutely normal between attacks? Y.. [ j 3
WEATHER 12
* n *
17. Does the weather affect your chest? ' '
Only record 'Yes' if adverse weather definitely and regularly causes chest symptoms.
If 'No' to question 17, go to question 18.
If 'Yes' to question 17:
17a. Does the weather make you short of breath?
If 'No' to question 17, go to question 18. Y«> f~~| t
If 'Yes' to question 17:
* ' '
13
17b. Specify type of weather, e.g. fog, damp, cold, heat, other I I
-------
jASAL CATARRH
|8. Do you usually have a stuffy nose or catarrh at the back of your nose?
20. Do you have this on most days for as much as three months each year?
gjEST ILLNESSES
21, During the past three years have you had any chest illness which has kept
you from your usual activities for as much as a week?
If'No' to question 21. go to question'22.
If'Yes' to question 21:
21a. Did you bring up more phlegm than usual in any of these illnesses?
If 'No' to question 21a, go to question 22.
If 'Yes' to question 21a.
21b. How many illnesses like this have you had in the past three years?
Page 3
14
DD
Y». It
nan »
Y.t Do HI
16
1 lUo«.«| I ;
t or nor.I I ,
ni»»»««»L_)
HAVE YOU EVER HAD:
22, An injury or operation affecting your
chest?
23 Heart trouble?
24. Bronchitis?
25. Pneumonia?
26. Pleurisy?
27, Pulmonary tuberculosis?
28. Bronchial asthma?
D »
D "
n "
D 20
D 21
a »
D »
29. Allergies
30. Hay fever
31. Emphysema?
32. Bronchiectasis?
33. Other chest trouble? ,
34. Chronic skin problems?
35.- Cancer?
36. Blood condition or anemia?
(Code: 0=no: l=yes.
D "
n »
D «
D "
D *>
D "
CD 30
D 31
37. Were you sick at any time last week or the week before?
(Week ends Sunday at midnight.)
If'Yes': What was the matter? .
.QI
32
Anything else?
345
-------
I am going to re
tell me whe
38. N»nrouL
89. H««d»ch«
40. iMOMla
41. PBtigu*
42. PilpltotloM
43. Dlzzln«M
44. HUM*
45. Vomiting
46. Smrtlag
47. Slnuc oong»rtlom
48. ty* Irrttctlon
49. Shortiuai of br»«th
SO, Burning or Irrltetlon
of tho BOB*
SI. Runny noia
92. Qw*t palm
S3. Cough
54. Other
ad a list of symptoms. For each one 1 should like you to
ther you have it frequently, occasionally, or hardly ever:
How often do you
frairn T
» 5 I i
it 4 > 2
1 1 : J
\ i I |
£ 8 1 I
123 0 (33)
123 0 (34)
123 0 (35)
123 0 (36)
123 0 (»7)
123 0 (38)
123 0 (»9)
123 0 (40)
123 0 (41)
123 0 (42)
123 0 (43)
123 0 (44)
123 0 (45)
123 0 (46)
123 0 (47)
123 0 (48)
123 0 (49)
Would you say that your health In
Excellent Q
Qood Q
Pair D
Poor? D
Don't know Q
1
i iak for eh Bynptoa with
' poiltlv* nmrt
Is there anything in
particular which seems
to bring the on'
(SO)
(SI)
(52)
(S3)
(54)
(58)
(5«
(57)
(SB)
(50)
(80)
( 1)
(«)
( «)
< j
( 5)
( 6)
general is
(D
gj
(U)
(o)
A*k for »Mh tyaptam with
poiltlv* «uw«ri
Did you have last week
or the week before?
Y»« No OX
1 * 0(7)
1 2 0(8)
1 2 0(«)
120 (lo)
1 2 0 (11)
1 2 0 (12)
1 2 0 (13)
120 (14)
1 2 0 (IE)
120 (16)
120 (17)
1 2 0 (16)
120 (19)
i 2 o (an)
1 2 0 (21)
120 (22)
120 (23)
346
-------
S.V'iii smoke?
Ln/' Yn' >f regular smoker (as defined
aucitu"* 5 '4.) up to one month ago.
|f'No' to question 55a, ask
question 55b.
If'Yes' to question 55a:
jjoyou inhale the smoke?
|uuld you s.iy you inhale the smoke
Wiily'(S), moderately (M), deeply
ow old were you when you started
Inoking regularly?
rfow many manufactured cigarettes
jo you usually smoke per day?
tow much tobacco (oz/g) do you
busily smoke per week in hand-
oiled cigarettes?
Now much pipe tobacco (oz/g) do
|DU usually smoke per week?
How many cigars do you usually
imokc per week?
|/ta/x ijr^i. (L) ).
&veyou ever smoked as much as
|ne cigarette a day [or one ounce of
jjobacco a month] for as long as a
If'No' to question 55b, go to
question 56.
If'Yes' to question 55b:
How old were you when you started
smoking regularly?
How old were you when you last
gave up smoking?
How many manufactured cigarettes
per day were you smoking before
you gave up?
How much tob.icco (oz/g) per week
wcru you smoking in hand-rolled
cigarettes before you gave up?
How much pipe tobacco (oz/g) per
week were you smoking before you
give up?
How many cigars per week were
TOu smoking ocfore you gave up?
fttify large (L) or small (S).
| |
_
LJ
I _ |
Y.»
_
LJ
I _ I
Ho
_
I _ I
p« P
day
jr«*r old
pa r *o rh 1 r»
CODING FOR SMOKING HISTORY
Before coding refer to instructions.
Smoking history
Never smoked
Ex-srhoker
Present smoker - docs not
inhale
Present smoker inhales
slightly
Present smoker - inhales
moderately
Present smoker - inhales
deeply
Type of smoker
Cigarettes only
Pipe only
Cigars only
Cigarettes and pipe/cigars
Cigars and pipe
Non-smoker
Amount smoked per day* (average
including weekends)
Cigarette tobacco:
Nil
1-4 g
5-14 g
15-24 g
25-34 g
35 g or more
Pipe/cigar tobacco:
Nil
'' 1-4 g
: 5-14 g
15-24g
25-34 g
35 g or more
D1
D>
*
D '
8
D '
D-
D°
D<
D'
D°
r | ,
I_J '
D'
D'
D<
a8
D'
1
D<
a>
D«
a-
a-
* 1 01 oj pipe tobacco =28 cigarettes=2/t g
t small cigar m 2 cigarettes
I large cigar = 5 cigarettes
21
Age started £odc °° , ,
° . if a non-
(years) smoker 1 1
Age stopped Code 00 ?!L
T>. rf if a present
(years) sm£ei L- '
29
D
31
D
PageS
24
25
27
347
-------
Pjge 6
DD
V.. »D
1 2
DD
Y«« Ko
DD
(K (VPATION'
Record ,>H iLnii-il liiifs number of years in which
subject has uvrl, Cil in any o/ these industries.
56. Have you ever worked in a dusty job
a. At a coalmine? '.....
b. In any other mine ? :
c. In a quarry ?
d. In a foundry ?
c. In a pottery?
f. In a cotton, flax or hemp mill?
g. With asbestos?
h. In any otlic-r dusty job ? ;
If'Ye»', specify
Have you worked for a year or more in
a dusty Job? *
Yes D (1)
No D (2)
a a
To Ho
1 2
a a
32
33
34
35
.16
37
08
39
57. Total number of years in dusty *> *l
job? D D
58a. Have you been exposed regularly
to irritating gas or
chemical fumes? 42
If 'Yet', give details of
nature and duration.
Yes ||
SB a and b ''
No _,
SB a and b U »
Yet
56»
No
58b
58b. Have you ever been off work for
" shift or longer
a s
foll
following acute
exposure to gases
or tumes?
If 'Yei', give details of
nature and duration.
No
Yes
S6a
58k
Coding only (card 2)
Health col hh code
Blank col U5-50
Resume punching on page 1
348
-------
SECTION VII-D
ANDERSON-1970-POSTAL
(Health Reactions)
IIKA1.TII QUKSTIONNATHK
MAHCII, 1971
47-50
Today's r>Jtc
IF.ASE ANSWER EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
ME
&F.SS
Ojtf of Uir th 57-62
; Month Day Year
Sex 63
U Male D Female
ire you: 64
f D Single n Married
LJ Widowed Q Divorced or Separated
he you:
d Employed CJ Student d Retired
D Housewife CJ Disabled G Other
Month Day Year 51-56
Whit kind of work do you do? 65
In what type of business or industry do you work? 66
MARIUEU WOMEN: What kind of work doc. your husband do?
What type of business or industry does he work in?
How long have you lived at this address? 70-71
How long have you lived in Anderson? 74-75
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BY PLACING AN [xj IN THE BOXES MARKED "YES" OR "NO"
i i i i
Count a cough ict'f/i first smoke or.on first going out of doors.
Exclude clearing throat or a single cough.
Do you usually cough first thing in the morning?
Do you usually cough during the ciny or at night?
Ignore an occasional cough.
\tt No
1 2
LJ a
Yes No
IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED "YES" TO EITHER QUESTIONS 1 OR 2:
3. Ho you cough like this on most days for as much as three
months each year?
Do you usually bring up any phlegm from your chest first thing in the
morning?
Count phlegm with the first smoke or on first goiny out of doors.
Exclude phlegm from the nose. Count swallowed phlegm.
1 2
D a
Y« No
1 2
a a
Yes No
Do you usually bring up any phlegm from your chest during the day or
at night?
Count twice or more.
IF YOU HAVE ANSWERLO "YriS"TO EITHER QUESTIONS 4 OR 5:
1 2
Yes No
6. Do you bring up phlegm like this on most days or nights
for as much as three months each year?
D D
Yes No
349
-------
Page 2
7. In the past three years have you had a period of increased cough and phlegm 1
lasting for three weeks or more? Q Q
Y« No
If "Yes":
3 2
7a. Have you had more than one such period? (~~| Q
Y« No
1
8. Have you ever coughed up blood? Q] [~~]
Yes No
If "Yes":
3 2
8a. Was this in the past year? [~] Q
Yei No
9. Are you troubled by shortness of breath when hurrying on level ground 2
or walking up a slight hill? Q Q
Yes No
10. Do you get short of breath walking with other people of your own age 3
on level ground? [ ] | |
Yej No
1 1 . Do you have to stop for breath when walking at your own pace on level 5 4
ground? Q Q
Yes No
1
12. Does your chest ever sound wheezing or whistling? ! | [ ] ip
Yes No
if'Yes":
3 2
12a. Do you get this most days or nights? Q [ |
Yes No
1
13. Have you ever had attacks of shortness of breath with wheezing? | [ Q 11
Yes No
If "Yes":
3 2
13a. Is/was your breathing absolutely normal between attacks? .(" [ [ ]
Yes No
1
14. Does the weather affect your chest? [ | | | 12
Yes No
If "Yes":
What kind of weather affects your chest?
13
(Please write in answer)
2 3
14a. Does the weather make you short of breath? I 1 PI
Yes No
15. Do you usually have a stuffy nose or catarrh at the back of your nose? ("H r~\ u
. Yes No
If "Yes":
15a. Do you have this on most days for as much as three months each 1 2
year? D D l5
Yes No
350
-------
P. mo 3
|, During the past three years hnvc you had any chest illness which has kept
' you from your usual activities for as much as a week?
If "Yes":
16a. Did you bring up more phlegm than usual in any of these illnesses?
If "Yes":
16b. Have you had more than one illness like this in the
past three years?
n
Yc«
D
Yes
n
D
No
2
n
No
3
n
No
17, Have you ever had:
is
All injury or operation i o
affecting your chest? [ | [~~~| 17
Yes No
1 0
Heart trouble? fj Q]
Yes No
1 0
Bronchitis? Q [~]
Yes No
1 0
Pneumonia? FJ [~1
Yes No
1 0
Pleurisy? Q] [~]
Yes No
1 0
Pulmonary tuberculosis? . . . [ [ [ [
Yes No
1 0
Bronchial asthma? [~j p~]
Yes No
19
20
21
22
23
Allergies? ................ T~|
Yes
Hay fever? ............... Q]
Yes
1
Emphysema? ............ [ |
Yes
1
Bronchieciasis? .......... Q]
Yes
1
Other chest trouble? ...... F~]
Yes
Chronic skin problems? .... fj
Yes
Cancer? ................
Blood condition or anemia? . . P"!
Yes
n
No
0
n
No
d
a
No
0
a
No
0
a
No
0
a
No
fe
No
0
a
No
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
18. Were you sick at any time during the last two weeks?
If "Yes":
What was the matter?
i
D
Yes
n
No
32
Anything else?
351
-------
PI.LASF. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING TABI.K BY PLACING AN |X| IN THE APPROPRIATE BOX
19. How oftcp do
you have each / / / «, ,
of the / / ^ /iT-v,/
following? /£ j ^ l^^l
Nervousness
Headache
Insomnia
Fatigue
Palpitations
Dizziness
Nausea
Vjiiiitiiig
Sweating
Sinus congestion
Eye irritation
Shortness of
breath
Burning or
irritation of
the nose
Runny nose
Chest p.iins
Cough
Other (specify)
D
D
n
n
a
a
n
n
a
D
a
a
d
n
a
a
a
2
.a
2
D
2
D
D
a
2
a
2
a
2
D
a
n
a
a
2
a
a
a
2
a
a
3
a
3
a
3
a
3
a
3
D
3
a
3
a
3
U
n
a
a
3
a
3
D
3
a
D
a
a
u
34
35
36
37
33
39
40
4]
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
FOR EACH SYMPTOM FOR WHICH
YOU CHECK P.D "FREQUENTLY"
OR "OCCASIONALLY":
Is there anything in particular
which seems to bring this on?
(WRITE IN ANSWER)
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
Did you have any of these symptoms
during the last two weeks?
YES NO
1 2
Nervousness \ ] [ \ ^
1 2
Headache Q Q 8
1 2
Insomnia 1 I [ ] 9
1 2
Fatigue [ ] [ J 10
1 2
Palpitations Q Q U
.1 2
Dizziness Q Q 12
1 2 :
Nausea rj Q 13
-i, _2
Vomiting \ \ \~\ a
1 2
Sweating DO 15
1 2
Sinus congestion ["""] QJ 16
1 2
Eye irritation [~~] PJ 17
1 2
Shortness of 1 II ! 18
breath ^ L-J
Burning or 12
irritation of | | | [ 19
the nose
1 2
Runny nose [~~] [ J . 20
1 2
Chest pains FH [ ) 21
cough q rj 22
1 2
Other (specify) CH CU 23
Would you say that your health in general is:
i Q Excellent 2 Q Coo
-------
21. Do you smoke? Q Yes C] No
21a. If "Yes"; ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS:
Do you inhale the smoke?
Would you say you inhale the smoke:
LJ Slightly [_J Moderately Q] Deeply
How old were you when you started smoking regularly?
Pace 5
years old.
How much do you usu.illy smoke? PLEASE FILL IN AMOUNT BELOW
Manufactured cigarettes _ Number per WORKING DAY
__ Number per DAY on WEEKENDS
Handrolled cigarettes __ Ounces of tobacco per WEEK
Pipe tobacco ___ Ounces of tobacco per WEEK
Cigars _ Number of LARGE cigars per WEEK
_ Number of SMALL cigars per WEEK
2lb. If "No"; ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS:
Have you ever smoked as much as one cigarette a day or one ounce of tobacco a month,
for as long as a year?
How old were you when you started smoking regularly? _ years old.
How old were you when you last gave up smoking? _ years old.
How much were you smoking then ? PLEASE FILL IN AMOUNTS BELOW
Manufactured cigarettes
Handrolled cigarettes
Pipe tobacco
Cigars
Number per WORKING DAY
Number per DAY on WEEKENDS
Ounces of tobacco per WEEK
Ounces of tobacco per WEEK
Number of LARGE cigars per WEEK
Number of SMALL cigars per WEEK
FOR
OFFICE
USE
ONLY
n
|
24
25
26
28-29
30-31
353
-------
Page 6
22. Have you ever worked
in a dusty job
a. At a coal mine? . ..
b. In any other mine?.
c. In a quarry?
d. In a foundry? . . . .
e. In a pottery?
f. In a cotton, flax or
hemp mill?
g. With asbestos?
1 2 No. of
YES NO Yean
D D 32
an 33
a a 34
a D 35
a a 36
an 37
a a 38
h. In any other dusty
job?
a a
39
If "Yes", specify:
23. How many yt-ars altogether have you worked in a
dusty job?
40-41
years.
24. Have you been c (posed regularly to irritating
gas or chemical fumes?
D D
Yes No
If'Yes':
What was it? ,
When?
For how long?
25. Have you ever been off work for a shift or
longer following acute exposure to gases or
fumes?
If'Yes':
What was it?
When?
For how long?
Yes No
Sute of California Department of Public Health
KOB OFFICE
USK ONLY
42
44
2-15-71
354
-------
SECTION VII-8
CARSON-1971
V
CAnnoyance and Health Reaction)
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
January, 1972
I.D.
77-79(cards 1,2,3)
Date
Interviewer
73(card 1)
Name
Address
Introduction
I'm
_from the State Human Relations Agency. We are
making a survey on how people feel about the community in which they
live. I would like to ask you some questions about where you live and
work.
Section I
Census Table
House-
hold
Member
I. P.
Spouse
Child 1
Child 2
Child 3
Child 4
Child 5
Age
Sex
Mari-
tal
Status
Occupation
-
Work Place
Education
in vi u <
w K u ffl
1 234
1 234
1 234
1 234
1 234
1 234
1 234
1 234
ASK MARITAL STATUS, OCCUPATION, WORK PLACE AND EDUCATION ONLY FOR
ADULTS AJND FOR CHILDREN AT LEAST 17 YEARS OLD. -INDICATE MARRIED COUPLES
BY BRACKETS OR ARROWS IF MORE THAN ONE COUPLE LIVES IN THE HOUSEHOLD
355
-------
Section II
2,
Card No. 1 r..
1.
2.
3.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Ask only if not obvious (check
Do you live in:
a single house
a row house (town house)
type of dwelling unit) .
an apartment house with less than 5 apartments
an apartment house with more than 5 apartments
trailer?
other
How many rooms are there in you
How many bedrooms are there in
Does this include all the
for sleeping?
DO NOT ENTER CODE AT LEFT.
What hours during the week days
your home?
Codes:
between -
and between -
If "other", such as traveler.
working alternate shifts.
explain here
DO NOT ENTER CODE AT LEFT
r home?
your home?
rooms used regularly
are you usually in
Between 8:00 AM - 8:00 PM
1 _ 3 hours
2 4-6
3 7-9
4 10-12
5 other
356
-------
3.
card No. 1
4.
1
2
3
4
How long a time have you lived in carson?
How long a time have you lived in this
residential area?
How long a time have you lived in this
house?
DO NOT ENTER CODE AT LEFT
Years
5.
8
8
In general, how do you feel about living in this
residential area? DO you rate it as:
1 good
2 fair
3 poor?
0 D.K. (Dorft know)
6. What are some of the things you like about living
around here - things that you feel are advantages
or that make this a good place to live?
7.
1
2
3
0
Nowadays it is seldom that a residential area has
advantages only. What about the things you don't
like here? Would you say there is:
nothing at all you dont like
a few things or
many things?
D.K.
357
-------
4.
Card No. 1
8.
What are some of the things you don't like about living
here?
1 odor from industry
2 odor from industry and any one of the following:
air pollution or noise or other pollution
air pollution or noise or other pollution (without
mention of odor from industry)
other (without mention of any of the above)
9. Have you ever felt like moving away from this residential
area?
1 Yes
13 2 No
13 0 D.K.
10. When you felt like moving away, what has the reason been?
1 odor from industry
2 odor from industry and any one of the following:
air pollution or noise or other pollution
air pollution or noise or other pollution (without
mention of odor from industry)
other (without mention of any of the above)
11.
13
13
1
2
0
If you could find a similar apartment (house) which would
not be more expensive in another residential,area, would
you like to move there?
Yes
No
D.K.
358
-------
5.
Card No. 1
12.
13.
14.
15
15
1
2
3
4
1
2
0
1
2
3
4
Why would you like to do this?
odor from industry
odor from industry and any one of the following:
air pollution or noise or other pollution
air pollution or noise or other pollution (without
mention of odor from industry)
other (without mention of any of the above)
IB there anything here in the community that you think
is harmful for you or your family?
Yes
No
D.K.
What is this?
odor from industry
odor from industry and any one of the following:
air pollution or noise or other pollution
air pollution or noise or other pollution (without
mention of odor from industry)
other (without mention of any of the above)
359
-------
6.
;ard No. 1
14a
15.
16.
17
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
0
1
2
0
IF ODOR IS MENTIONED IN QUESTIONS 8-14, ASK THE
FOLLOWING:
Where do you think these, odors come from?
Here are a few problems which different communities are
facing. How would you rate each of these for Carson
today in terms of serious, somewhat serious or not
serious?
Outbreaks of contagious diseases, such as whooping
cough, diphtheria, etc.
serious
somewhat serious
not serious
D.K.
Do you know if there are any local or state
authorities attempting to correct this problem?
Yes. What authority?
No
D.K.
360
-------
card No. 1
17.
18.
19.
20.
19
19
21
21
1
2
3
0
1
2
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
0
Water pollution
serious
somewhat serious
not serious
O.K.
Do you know if there are any local or state a
authorities attempting to correct this problem?
Yes. what authority?
No
D.K.
Noise in the community or residential area.
serious
somewhat serious
not serious
O.K.
Do you know if there are any local or state
authorities attempting to correct this problem?
Yes . What authority?
No
D.K.
361
-------
8.
Car<3 NO. 1 '
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
24
24
26
26
1
2
3
0
1
2
1
2
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
0
Air pollution
serious
somewhat serious
not serious
D.K.
What kind of air pollution are you thinking of?
odor from industry
other
Do you know if there are any local or state
authorities attempting to correct this problem?
Yes. What authority?
No
D.K.
Are there any other problems you think are serious or
somewhat serious for Carson?
serious
somewhat serious
not serious
D.K.
Do you know if there are any local or state authorities
attempting to correct this problem?
Yes. What authority?
NO
D.K.
362
-------
9.
Card No. 1
26
27.
1
2
3
1
2
3
ASK QUESTIONS 26 & 27 ONLY IF A "SERIOUS" OR "SOMEWHAT
SERIOUS" RESPONSE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO AT LEAST ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS 15-25.
Have you ever thought of requesting, or have you actuall:
requested some authority or agency to take action concen
ing any of these problems, e.g., by writing or phoning
an official, signing a petition, or attending a meeting?
If so, what problem was it?
Q.26 Odors fro
Type of Action
Writing or
phoning an
official
Signing a
petition
Attending a
meeting
m Industry
Requested
1
1
1
Thought of
2
2
2
p. 2 7 Other Problems
Type of Action
Writing or
phoning an
official
Signing a
petition
Attending a
meeting
Requested
1
1
1
Thought of
2
2
2
NO
3
3
3
NO
3
3
3
363
-------
10.
Card No. 1
28.
1
2
3
0
IF A "I" HAS BEEN CIRCLED ANYWHERE IN THE TABLE ABOVE,
ASK THIS:
DO you think this request has given or will give any
results?
Yes, has given
Yes, might give
No
O.K.
364
-------
I will now ask some questions about some sources of noise and air pollution that may exist in most cities,
Have you noticed How often? Is it
here at home
during the last
three months?
Yes NO D.K.
1 every day
2 at least once a
week
3 at least once a
month
4 less often?
0 Don't know
Would you say it
has bothered you
1 only a little
2 moderately
3 very much
4 not at all?
0 Don't know
How often has it
bothered you? Is it
1 almost everytime
2 about half the time
3 less often?
0 Don't know
Card 1
Traffic noise
Aircraft noise
29-32
33-36
1
1
2 *
2 *
0,
0«
Noise from industries
What industries?
37-^*0
Ul-(»l»
i»5Ji8
1
1
1
2i
2*
2»
04
Oi
0*
Other kinds of noise
What noise?
U9-5Z
53-56
57-60
1
1
1
2i
24
2.
o»
04
04
12340
12340
12340
12340
12340
12340
12340
12340
I 1
1
2 3 ]
2 3
4»
4»
0*
0.
i
|1
1
2
2
3
3
0
i 2 3 4« 0«
1 2 3 4* 0*
1 2 3 4* 0«
1 2 3 01
1230
1230
| 1 2
1 2
1 2
>
T~J 44 o» |Y
3 4» 0» !
3 44 Oi i
r
2 3 OJ
230
230
in
10
-------
Card 1
Dust or soot from
industries
What industries?
Have you noticed How often? Is it
here at home
during the last
three months?
Yes
JS1-6I* 1
65-68 1
NO D.K.
69-72 1
2i
2)
2,
0«
0 »
o,
1 every day
2 at least once a
week
3 at least once a
month
4 less often?
0 Don't know
12340
1 2 34 0
12340
Would you say it
has bothered you
1 only a little
2 moderately
3 very much
4 not at all?
0 Don't know
("I 23~| 4 4 0 »
1 2 3 4*0*
1 2 3 4 i 0 i
How often has it
bothered you? Is it
1 almost every time
2 about half the time
3 less often?
0 Don't know
1 2 3
1230
1230
51
Card 2
Odors from industries
What industries?
to
to
l-U
9-12
Other air pollution
What air pollution?
17-20
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
21\
2*.
2i
2
2,
o*.
0*.
0 »
0
0 !
1234
1234
1234
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 2 3~j 4*t 0*i
1 2 3 4*i 0*4
1234*' 0*»
1 2 3 0|
1230
1230
T 2 3"f 4 » 0 t | 1 2 fTl
1234*0* 1230
1 2 3 4 i. 0 » 1230
* oo w ipeaxcw 5* ova cocuerne THIS
-------
13.
Card No, 2
50.
51.
52.
54.
52
54
54
54
54
54
1
2
3
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1 '
2
3
4
0
You said the odors have bothered you. DO you think it's
better, worse, or the same this summer as last summer?
better
worse
the same
O.K.
Do you think it's because there is less odor or because
you have become used to it?
.less odor
used to it
O.K.
Do you think it ' s because more odor or because you are
more sensitive to it?
more odor
more sensitive
O.K.
Can you tell me about your general opinion about the
problem of odor? DO you think that odors in general are
very annoying
annoying
not too annoying
not annoying at all?
O.K.
367
-------
14.
Card NO. 2
55.
56.
57.
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
4
0
DO you think you are
more sensitive than other people to odor
less sensitive than other people to odor
or about the same?
O.K.
Do you think Carson has
a greater problem with odor than other cities of it
size
a smaller problem with odor than other cities of \t
size
about the same?
O.K.
We have also talked some about noise. DO you think nois
in general is
very annoying
annoying
not too annoying
not annoying at all?
O.K.
368
-------
15.
Card No. 2
58.
59.
60.
61.
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
0
Do you think you are
more sensitive than other people to
less sensitive than other people to
or about the same?
O.K.
Do you think Carson has
noise
noise
a greater noise problem than other cities of its
size
a smaller noise problem than other cities of its
size
or about the same?
O.K.
Do you think the authorities are too much
about air pollution, too little concerned
concerned
about air
pollution, or as much concerned as they should be?
Too much
Too little
As much
O.K.
Do you think the authorities are too much
about noise, or as much concerned as they
too much
too little
as much
O.K.
concerned
should be?
369
-------
16.
Card No. 2
Respondent
62 Age 1234 63 Marital 1 NM 2 M 3 W 4 D/S
Occupation
Industry
Location
Education
Husband
64 1 B.C. 2 W.C. 3 P.
65
66 1 2 3 4
67 1 E.S. 2 H.S. 3 C.E. 4 B.A.
Occupation
Industry
Location
i
Education
Wife
68 1 B.C. 2 W.C. 3 P.
69
70 1 2 3 4
71 1 E.S. 2 H.S. 3 C.E. 4 B.A.
Household Size
Total No.
NO. of children
less than 6
6-16
Adults
76 Sex 1 M. 2 P.
72 123456789+
73 123456789+
74 123456789+
75 1234567 89+
370
-------
17.
SECTION III
Use the actual wording of each question. Put X in appropriate square after each question. When in doubt record 'No'.
PREAMBLE I am going to ask you some questions, mainly about your chest. I should like you to answer
'YES' or 'NO' whenever possible. card 3
COUGH
1. Do you usually cough first thing in the morning [on getting up* J ? HI fl 1
Count a cough with first smoke or on first going out of doors. Exclude clearing throat or a *
single cough.
3. Do you usually cough during the day - or at night? _i_ '
Ignore an occasional cough. I' <'
If 'No' to both quettiom 1 and 3, go to queition 6.
If 'Yet* to either queition I or 3:
5. Do you cough like this on most days [or nights*] for as much as three months , i, ,,
each year? IIII LJ
, T.. I. l»
PHLEGM
6. Do you usually bring up any phlegm from your chest first thing in the morning t i
[on getting up*]? LI D 4
Count phlegm with the first smoke or on firtt going out of doort. Exclude phlegm from the T" "
nose. Count swallowed phlegm,
8. Do you, usually bring up any phlegm from your chest during the day - or at night? ' _!.
Accept twice or more. 11 LJ
r T.i I*
If 'No' to both queitioni 6 and 8, go to queition 12a.
If 'Yei' to either queition 6 or 8:
10. Do you bring up phlegm like this on most days [or nights*] for as much as three ' * pi,
months each year? LJ LJ I I
T«« I* It
* For subjects who work at night.
12a In the past three years have you had a period of [increased*] cough and phlegm ,. f~~\
lasting for three weeks or more? ''
If 'No' to queition 12a, go to queition ">)|a
If 'Ye*' to queition 12a: , .
T««-l y*rl*l I
I2b/c. Have you had more than one such period?
For subjects who usually have phlegm. »«ri««. LJ
371..
-------
18.
I4a. Are you troubled by shortness of breath when hurrying on level ground or ».«»u« t
walkin u a sliht hill?
n
« '
BREATHLESSNESS
Are you trou
walking up a sligh
on
If 'No' to question 14*. go to queioon dl
If 'Yd' to question 14ai
I4b. Do you get short of breath walking with other people of your own age on -». [~j 3
level ground?
If 'No' to question 14b. go to question 21
If 'Ye*' to question 14b:
14c. Do you have to stop for breath when walking at your own pace on level ».... Q 4
ground?
t Di^Ud from walking by any condition! other than heart or Ltngditeate. t..-.. | | »
CHEST ILLNESSES
21 . During the past three years have you had any chest illness which has kept r i
you from your .usual activities for as much as a week? I I
If 'No' to question 21, go to question 22.
If 'Yes' to question 21:
21a. Did you bring up more phlegm than usual in any of these illnesses? "'I""!*
If 'No' to question 21a, go to question 22.
If 'Yes' to question 21*. i iu«,..[ |a
21b. How many illnessei like this have you had in the past three years? , ., ..r.(~~| 4
22. Were you sick at any time last week or the week before? T"LJ' "LJ1 17
(Week endi Sunday at midnight.)
If-Yes': What was the matter?
Anything else?
23. Have you bean to a doctor within the last two weeks? I"""] II 18
2li. Have you been a patient in a hospital within the last two weeks?
n a »
372,
-------
19.
I am going to read you a list of symptoms and I should like you to tell
me whether you have each one frequently, occasionally or hardly ever.
How often do you / / / .
have 1 / /*/°y
Would you say you /^/^ /^T/
have it frequently/^ /./ /^V
occasionally, or > § /?*/
hardly ever? /<£ /£ /&*/
:
Nervousness
Headache
Sleeplessness
Dizziness,
i
D
i
D
i
D
i
nausea or i
vomiting
Constipitation
Pain in
joints
Difficulty in
urinating
Sinus congestion
Eye irritation
Burning or
irritation of
the nose
Runny nose
Chest pains
i
D
i
D
i
D
i
D
i
a
i
a
i
a
i
a
/ ^
2
D
2
D
2
a
2
2
D
2
a
2
a
2
a
2
a
2
a
2
a
2
D
/ " '
3
c
3
c
3
D
3
a
3
a
3
a
3
a
3
a
3
D
3
a
3
a
33
34
35
36
38
39
40
42
43
45
46
47
Would you eay that your health la general 10
Excellent Q (l)
Good D (2) UO
Pair D m
Poor? D (U)
Don't know D (0)
27.
Have you worked for a year or more In
a dusty job?
Tea D (1) ,
No D (2) &
Total number of years in dusty 50 51
job? D D
373
-------
20.
TOBACCO SMOKING
&fa t>b you smoke?
Kecord'Yei' if regular tmolifr (at defined
in queition 29, up to one month ago.
If 'No* to queition 28 aik
qutttion 29
If-Ye*'to queition 28
Do you inhale the smoke?
Would you say you inhale the smoke
slightly (S), moderately (M), deeply
(D)?
How old were you when you started
smoking regularly?
How many manufactured cigarettes
do you usually smoke per day?
How much tobacco (oz/g) do you
usually smoke per week in hand-
rolled cigarettes?
How much pipe tobacco (oz/g) do
you usually smoke per week?
*?
How many cigars do you usually
.smoke per week?
Specify large (L) or tmaU (5).
.Have you ever smoked as much as
one cigarette a day [or one ounce of
tobacco a month ] for as long as a
If'Ye*'to question 29
How old were you when you started
smoking regularly?
How old were you when you last
gave up smoking?
How many manufactured cigarettes
per day were you smoking before
you gave up?
Now much tobacco (oz/g) per week
were you smoking in hand-rolled
cigarettes before you gave up?
How much pipe tobacco (oz/g) per
Week were you smoking before you
fcyeup?
(tew many cigars per week were
you smoking before you gave up?
'i
Specify large (L) or matt (S).
no
T«» It
DO
ODD
1 D
rt.r. t>«
JJJ «»!
_____ at -«
DD
^-^ j
!Ij """"
CODING FOR SMOKING HISTORY
Before totting refer to trutmcriont.
Smoking hiitory ;__
Never smoked /U ' *2
Ex-smoker 1 -
Present smoker - does not r ,
inhale U »
Present smoker - inhales , ,
slightly LJ «
Present smoker - inhales i i
moderately 1 '
Present smoker inhales , .
deeply LJ *
Typeofimoker ^
Cigarettes only 1 1 '*
Pipe only LJ
Cigars only LJ
_. . . . 1 I 4
Cigarettes and pipe/cigars 1 1
Cigars and pipe Q *
.. , % I 1
Non-smoker LJ
Amount tmoked per d*y* (avenge
including wctkenai)
Cigarette tobacco:
Nil U ' 5U
1-4 g D'
5-l4g D\
15-24 g D «
25-34 g Q
35 g or more Q «
Pipe/cigar tobacco:
Nil U ' 55
: 1-4 g n »
1
1 5-14 g n »
15-24 g Q«
25-34u n 5
* «»^ ^ L J
35 g or more r~J «
* J ^
(y*a"T ^oCT' U D
374
------- |