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 ,.„,.,  j—j  ,

    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                                                   ' I—I

              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                  i—j
     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?                      **L—1 *

            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.                                                         »•«•••«•  I—I
                                                                                                         8
 13.  Have you ever coughed up blood?                                                               ••  |  ] »

          11 'No' to question 13, go to question 14j.

          If'Yes'to question 13:                                                           ""  *  *"* 7**r  I—I

 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.                                                          I—I

          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 don•t 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?                                                                    I—II—I 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.                                                            1—1  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"""]     I—I        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

-------