PUBLIC RESPONSE TO DIESEL ENGINE
EXHAUST ODORS
Charles T. Hare
Karl J. Springer
FINAL REPORT
for
Division of Emission Control Technology
Air Pollution Control Office
Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. CPA 70-44
Southwest Research Institute
8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78228
April 1971
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SAN ANTONIO HOUSTON
-------
AR-804
PUBLIC RESPONSE TO DIESEL ENGINE
EXHAUST ODORS
Charles T. Hare
Karl J. Springer
FINAL REPORT
for
Division of Emission Control Technology
Air Pollution Control Office
Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. CPA 70-44
Southwest Research Institute
8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78228
April1971
Approved:
John M. Clark, Jr., Director
Department of Automotive Research
-------
FOREWORD
This project was initiated by the Division of Motor Vehicle Research and Development, National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (now the Air Pollution
Control Office of the Environmental Protection Agency), 5 Research Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48103.
The research program on which this report is based was performed by the Vehicle Emissions Research
Laboratory of Southwest Research Institute, 8500 Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas 78228. The sponsor's
contract number was CPA 7044, and the Institute's project number was 11-2794. Overall supervision of
this work was done by Mr. Karl J. Springer, and supervision of the survey, analysis, and reporting phases
was done by Charles T. Hare. The survey crew members were John Storment, Jim Chessher, Mae Saegert,
and Gilbert Vargas. The project was begun on February 16, 1970, and was scheduled for completion on
February 15, 1971, but it was extended 2 months for additional analysis and to permit review of the draft
final report. At the onset of the program, Mr. Jeffrey L. Raney was the Project Officer, and he was replaced
in this post by Dr. Joseph H. Somers effective September 17,1970.
-------
ABSTRACT
The objective of the project on which this report is based was to expand and refine information on
public opinion of diesel exhaust odors. Most of the available data on the subject was generated by a
precursor to this project which was conducted in 1969 and reported early in 1970. Modifications were
made to the survey plan, questionnaire, and mobile odor evaluation laboratory used in the 1969 five-city
survey, and public opinion sampling has been done. Five definable levels of diesel exhaust odors were
presented singly to different groups of people, and an attempt was made to sample opinions on diluent air
alone. All participants were drawn from the San Antonio metropolitan area, and were quota-sampled
according to the latest data available. The methods are described, data are presented and analyzed, and
possible applications of the results are outlined.
m
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This research project was an extension of work performed under NAPCA sponsorship in 1969 which
resulted in the report, "A Field Survey to Determine Public Opinion of Diesel Engine Exhaust Odor," dated
February 1970. Changes made in the experimental plan as results of knowledge gained in the earlier work
include:
(1) Only one odor was presented to each participant in the 1970 survey, as opposed to a series of
three odors in increasing intensity during the 1969 survey, to eliminate possible "history" or
"previous experience" effects.
(2) Five definable odor intensities were presented during the 1970 survey (nominal "D-2", "D-3",
"D-4", "D-5", and "D-6" as defined by the PHS Quality/Intensity standards kit), as well as a
sample containing no diesel exhaust, compared to three intensities during the 1969 survey.
(3) The participants were allowed to express their opinions of the odor directly in terms of
objectionability in the 1970 survey, whereas their objections were obtained indirectly in 1969.
(4) The results of the 1970 survey are presented in such a way as to make quantitative evaluations
of control technology in terms of public opinion feasible.
These modifications to the experimental plan made necessary certain mechanical changes in the
Sniffmobile, including tlie addition of a spray chamber, a spray pump, a heat exchanger, and another
refrigeration unit to control the humidity of the dilution air and to more effectively remove odors from it.
Other additions were insulation on the duct carrying diluent from the front of the Sniffmobile to the rear,
another charcoal filter system, and mechanical "stops" on the dilution control system to keep the odor
level constant while on-site. The questionnaire was also revised to reflect the modified experimental plan,
including such changes as deletion of references to multiple odors, deletion of questions not found relevant
to the survey results in 1969, and addition of questions which solicited direct opinions of the odor
presented in terms of objectionability and odor control measures.
The results of this project show that the modifications and changes made in the experimental plan
and questionnaire were mostly for the better. Taking the modifications in the order just given:
(1) The presentation of only one odor to each participant did eliminate the "history" effect. This
result is perhaps best shown by Figure 23, which indicates that response to the "D-4" and
"D-6" odor intensities presented during the 1969 survey was increased by the previous experi-
ence of one or two other odors. The "D-2" response was higher during the 1970 survey,
presumably because the public was more concerned and aware regarding air quality problems in
1970. Another factor which may be of importance is that participants in the 1969 survey may
have adopted a noncommittal "wait and see" attitude about the first odor presented ("D-2"),
since they knew they had yet to evaluate two other samples. This attitude would have forced
the average response toward the "neutral" or 2.0 rating.
(2) Presentation of five definable odor intensities worked rather well, and the only real fault in this
format lay in the rather small samples which resulted. The five intensities helped fill the gaps in
the previous (1969) data and confirmed the relationship between diesel odor intensity and odor
objectionability using both a hedonic scale and direct questions. The tests run with no diesel
odor were interesting, but they add little quantitatively to make the survey more useful. Most
of the participants exposed to the "nominal D-0" intensity were confused since they really
expected a stronger odor and the results reflect their confusion.
(3) The survey results also show that diesel odor objectionability increases with increasing odor
intensity, although the linearity and the strength of the relationship both depend on the
-------
manner in which the objectionability response is elicited from the participants. Figure 27 shows
several ways of obtaining objectionability as a function of odor intensity.
(4) Application of results such as those shown in Figure 27, in conjunction with results of odor
control technology evaluations performed for EPA over the past 5 years, is now feasible.
Quantitative interpretation of such analyses yields useful estimates of the effectiveness of diesel
exhaust odor control measures in terms of public opinion, but these estimates should be treated
very carefully considering the variability which can occur, due to the way in which objection-
ability is calculated.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD a
ABSTRACT in
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS v
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS viii
LIST OF TABLES x
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. OBJECTIVE 2
III. PREPARATIONS 3
A. Revisions to the Questionnaire and to the Overall Survey Plan 3
B. Revisions to the Mobile Odor Evaluation Laboratory 4
IV. CALIBRATION OF THE MOBILE LABORATORY 10
V. PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY 13
VI. RESULTS 17
A. Summaries of Odor Response Data and Demographic Characteristics of the Partici-
pants, Nominal Odor Intensities 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 17
B. Response Data and Characteristics of Participants, Nominal "D-0" Odor Intensity . 26
C. Effects of Demographic Variables on Odor Responses 29
D. Additional Data Analysis 30
VII. APPLICATION OF RESULTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH INFORMATION ON ODOR
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 35
LIST OF REFERENCES 38
APPENDIXES
A. Input from Consultants: National Opinion Research Center; Dr. Amos Turk . . A-l
B. Directions to Participants B-l
C. Calibration Data C-l
D. Field Study Data D-l
vu
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
1 Curbside View of Mobile Odor Evaluation Laboratory 4
2 Streetside View of Mobile Odor Evaluation Laboratory 4
3 View of Mobile Laboratory from the Right Rear Showing Generator Set/Odor
Source in Rear Compartment 7
4 Odor Dilution Control System Used in 1969 Survey 7
5 Odor Dilution Control System Used in 1970 Survey 7
6 System Set Up for Tests with No Diesel Odor 7
7 Interior of Odor Evaluation Room Looking Toward Rear 8
8 Schematic of Mobile Odor Evaluation Laboratory Showing Revised Dilution Air
Purification/Humidity Control System 8
9 View of Front Mechanical Compartment, Facing Forward, 1969 Configuration . 9
10 View of Front Mechanical Compartment, Facing Rearward, 1969 Configuration . 9
11 View into Front Mechanical Compartment from Odor Evaluation Room, 1970
Configuration 9
12 View of Front Mechanical Compartment, Facing Forward, 1970 Configuration
(Comparable with Figure 9) 9
13 View of Front Mechanical Compartment, Facing Rearward, 1970 Configuration
(Comparable with Figure 10) 9
14 Odor Panel "B," "O," "A," and "P" Quality Ratings as Functions of "D" Intensity
Rating 11
15 Map of San Antonio Showing Test Site Locations 13
16 Test Site 01, West Side of Main Plaza 14
17 Test Site 02, Northwest Shopping Center 14
18 Test Site 03, Sears Southside Store 14
19 Test Site 04, McCreless Shopping City 14
20 Test Site 05, Lackland Plaza Shopping Center 14
21 Test Site 06, Spartan-Atlantic Store 14
22 Fraction of Participants Who Chose Each Cartoon, Five Odor Levels 20
23 Average Cartoon-Number Responses for 1969 and 1970 Survey Data 21
via
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd)
Figure Page
24 Responses to Questions 1,3, and 4 on Back of Questionnaire 22
25 Responses to First Part of Question 2, Back of Questionnaire 23
26 Responses to Second Part of Question 2, Back of Questionnaire 24
27 Objectionability Results of 1969 and 1970 Surveys 25
28a Effect of Sex on Odor Responses 31
28b Effect of Age on Odor Responses 31
28c Effect of Education on Odor Responses 32
28d Effect of Income on Odor Responses 32
29 Comparison of Observed and Estimated Cartoon-Numbers 33
30 Comparison of Odor Ratings from a City Bus, 4-Month Fleet Test of Improved
(LSN) Injectors 36
tx
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Summary of Sniffmobile Calibration Results 10
2 Comparison of Fuels Used in 1969 and 1970 Surveys 11
3 Percent Distributions Based on the U.S. Population 16
4 Summary of Odor Opinion Data-Test Site 05 . 17
5 Summary of Odor Opinion Data-Test Site 04 18
6 Summary of Odor Opinion Data—Test Site 01 18
7 Summary of Odor Opinion Data-Test Site 02 19
8 Summary of Odor Opinion Data-Test Site 03 19
9 Cartoon-Scale Responses to the Odors Tested 21
10 Responses to Questions on Back of Questionnaire, Except Cartoon Ratings ... 22
11 Responses to Questions on Objectionability and Odor Reduction 23
12 Summary of Data-Test Site 06 . . . 27
13 Effects of Demographic Variables on Odor Responses 29
14 Normalized Responses for Each Category and Level 30
15 Observed and Estimated Average Cartoon Responses 33
16 Comparison of Odor Ratings, 4-Month Fleet Test of Improved (LSN) Injectors . 35
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In order to determine public opinion of various intensities of diesel exhaust odors, the first of two
projects was undertaken by the SwRI Vehicle Emissions Research Laboratory in June 1968. The first
project ended on February 15, 1970 and made data available on public response to diesel odors presented
in a series of three increasing intensities. These data indicated that comparative responses to odors by the
general public were quite similar in the five major urban areas surveyed, and they gave good indications of
variation in response to odors as functions of variables such as age, income, sex, and education. The areas in
which improvement was considered necessary were (1) elimination of the possible "history" or "previous
experience" effects on response to odors presented in a series, (2) learning something more specific about
odor objectionability, and (3) finding out what would happen if a sample containing no diesel odor were
presented to participants in the same way as the odorous samples.
To this end, the project reported herein was initiated on February 16, 1970, to place public opinion
of diesel exhaust odors on a more absolute basis. This contract is CPA 70-44, "Public Response to Diesel
Engine Exhaust Odors," and the work was performed for the Air Pollution Control Office of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. This report covers plans and preparations, mobile laboratory calibration, the
field survey, and results. The raw data and other materials are given in full in the appendixes.
-------
II. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project has been to establish the objectionability of several intensities of diesel
exhaust odor by presentation of each intensity singly to a quota-sampled group of urban/suburban resi-
dents. The plan has been to elicit responses to these odor intensities by means of standardized instructions
and a questionnaire employing both a hedonic rating scale (a scale depicting a range of pleasure and
displeasure) and direct questions on odor objectionability and odor reduction.
-------
III. PREPARATIONS
The two major divisions of this section describe revisions to the questionnaire and survey plan and
revisions to the mobile odor evaluation laboratory. The report on the 1969 five-city survey, titled "A Field
Survey to Determine Public Opinion of Diesel Engine Exhaust Odor" and dated February 1970, gives full
details on use of the mobile laboratory and questionnaire to elicit public opinion of diesel exhaust
odor.O)*
A. Revisions to the Questionnaire and to the Overall Survey Plan
Information generated by the 1969 survey was very helpful in characterizing public response to diesel
exhaust odors, but there were three specific areas in which improvements were deemed necessary. The first
area was that of responses to the second and third odors presented during the 1969 survey (always a "D-4"
and a "D-6", in that order), and the possibility that these responses may have been influenced in some way
by the odor(s) presented previously. The second area of concern was that the odor levels used in the 1969
survey may not have spanned a broad enough range to elicit responses which differ significantly from one
another, and the third area was that the respondents had not been able to express whether or not they
found the odor objectionable in a direct enough manner.
To resolve questions surrounding the three problem areas outlined above, a meeting was held at SwRI
on April 1, 1970. In attendance at this meeting were Jeffrey L. Raney, Jerry C. Romanovsky, Dr. Amos
Turk, Karl J. Springer, and Charles T. Hare. Mr. Raney was the Project Officer at that time. Mr. Romanov-
sky is involved in preparation of air quality criteria and long-range goals of pollution and odor abatement
programs, and Dr. Turk is an internationally known odor chemist who was engaged as a consultant. A
statement of the primary goals of the 1970 survey was then drawn up as follows:
(1) To substantiate and to quantify information generated in the initial opinion survey, and to
expand the number of odor intensities tested, and
(2) To provide information needed to assist in setting air quality criteria involving diesel odors.
It was the consensus of the group at the April 1 meeting that the questionnaire had generally been
very successful in the 1969 survey, so it was resolved not to change it any more than was necessary (the
revised questionnaire is included as the next page of this report, for reference). In particular, to insure
compatibility of 1969 and 1970 data, it was agreed that the cartoon scale and descriptive words used by the
participants to "rate" the odors should not be changed. In order to prevent the possibility of a "history" or
"previous experience" effect on the 1970 odor responses, it was decided that only one odor sample should
be presented to each participant. This decision made it necessary to eliminate reference to multiple odors in
the initial statement on the back of the questionnaire and to eliminate the second and third lines of boxes
(used for "Test 2" and "Test 3" responses in the 1969 survey) under the cartoons. Question Number 1 on
the back of the questionnaire, "Did you smell anything?", was added primarily to anticipate difficulties the
participants might have in perceiving the less intense odors. Question Number 2 on the back of the
questionnaire is in two parts, the first of which is essentially the same as the "experience" question used in
the 1969 survey. The second part of the question is new, and was included because the participant's frame
of reference is important when his opinion on odors is being considered. Answers to the second part of
Question 2 were also thought to be significant in determining which participants could and could not
identify the odor, since it is rarely present indoors. Question Number 3 on the back of the questionnaire
was included specifically to determine the participants' opinions in terms of the word "objectionable" since
this word is often used in air quality criteria. This question obtains each person's opinion of the odor in
relation to his definition of "objectionable," and this method of obtaining objectionability is more direct
than the method used previously. Question Number 4 is somewhat related to a question used during the
1969 survey, and was included as an attempt to obtain public opinion in terms of action which the
participants felt was desirable to reduce the diesel odors.
*Superscript numbers in parentheses refer to the List of References at the end of this report.
-------
The front of the questionnaire was revised somewhat to improve its readability, and the number-code
answer system was replaced by boxes which could be checked to indicate an affirmative answer. The age
question was modified to break the 25 to 44 age group into two smaller parts (25 to 34 and 35 to 44), and
the education question was changed to include another category, "Completed 4 yrs College," to make a
distinction between those having some college and those having completed college. The family income
question was modified to include an additional group in the higher income bracket, and the questions on
health and smoking used on the 1969 questionnaire were deleted.
The revised questionnaire was reviewed by Mr. Paul Sheatsley and Dr. Ben King of National Opinion
Research Center (NORC). These men and other staff members worked on development of the original
questionnaire, as well as the survey and analysis phases of the 1969 project. After NORC's assistance and
report was received^2), the questionnaire in its final form was forwarded to the Project Officer on May 11,
1970, and Bureau of the Budget approval was granted on July 15, 1970. Some revisons were also made to
the standardized verbal directions given to the participants. In particular, references to multiple odors were
eliminated, and instruction was given regarding what to do if no odor was perceived. A copy of the verbal
directions is in Appendix B.
The major change in the experimental plan, that of using a single odor intensity for each participant
rather than three, necessitated some other changes. During the 1969 survey, over 3,000 participants eval-
uated the odors presented, but it was realized that a sample of comparable size for each of the odors
presented in the 1970 survey would be a practical impossiblity. It was decided that a quota based on 200
persons would probably yield acceptable results, and it was expected that some 300 to 400 persons would
be surveyed before all the quotas would be filled. The quotas set and the basis for them are discussed in
Section V. Another change anticipated was in calibration of the mobile laboratory, which is discussed in
Section IV. It was also obvious that some changes in analysis of data would become necessary, although the
exact nature of all these changes was not known initially. The data analysis used and the differences
between analysis of 1969 and 1970 data are explained in Results, Section VI. In order to get public
response to a wider variety of odor intensities, it was also determined that odors having nominal intensities
"D-2", "D-3", "D-4", "D-5", and "D-6" should be tested. As an essentially separate experiment, public
response to a sample containing no diesel exhaust was also to be obtained. It was pointed out that some
odor would probably be present in the delivery ducts, but it was agreed to do as good a job as possible of
purging the ductwork before starting that phase of the survey. This requirement was part of the reason why
the humidity control/air cleanup system was necessary.
B. Revisions to the Mobile Odor Evaluation Laboratory
For orientation purposes, Figures 1 through 3 are general exterior views of the mobile laboratory,
called the "Sniffmobile," which was used in these studies. Figure 1 is a curbside view of the unit with the
ramp in place. In some locations, the tractor was left connected to the laboratory as shown, but, where
space was at a premium, it was unhitched and parked elsewhere. Figure 2 is a streetside view of the unit,
IK, SN1FFMOBILE
PUBLIC OPINION ODOR
— TESTING SURVEY
*d@bsSi;l
Figure 1. Curbside View of Mobile Odor Figure 2. Streetside View of Mobile Odor
Evaluation Laboratory Evaluation Laboratory
4
-------
Form Approved
Budget Bureau No. 85-S69017
No.
PUBLIC OPINION ODOR TESTING SURVEY
IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ.
This survey is to find out your opinion of a common odor typical of U.S. cities. The odor has no known
health hazard and your participation is completely voluntary.
DIRECTIONS
FOR EACH QUESTION, CHECK THE BOX BESIDE THE ONE ANSWER WHICH FITS YOU BEST.
ALL ANSWERS ARE CONFIDENTIAL. YOU WILL NEVER BE IDENTIFIED.
1.
3.
YOUR SEX:
Male . .
Female .
4.
YOUR AGE:
15-24 . ,
25-34 . .
35-44 . .
45-64 . .
65 or over
YOUR SCHOOLING:
8 yrs. or less
Some High School. . . .
Completed H.S
Some College
Completed 4 yrs. College .
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
5.
YOUR USUAL ACTIVITY:
Employed
Housewife
Student
Retired
Other
IF YOU CIRCLED EMPLOYED,
WHAT TYPE OF WORK?
Professional, business . .
owner or manager
Clerical, office or sales . .
Skilled or semi-skilled
D
D
D
n
n
n
n
n
wage earner
Other . . .
6. FAMILY INCOME LAST YEAR:
Under $4,000
4,000-6,999
7,000-9,999
10,000-14,999 ....
15,000 or more
D
n
n
n
n
NAPCA Form No.
HQ 27 (4/69)
-------
Next, an odor will be presented.
1. Did you smell anything?
Yes
No
IF YES, CHECK THE BOX UNDER THE FIGURE WHICH BEST EXPRESSES YOUR FEELING,
THEN ANSWER QUESTIONS 2. 3, AND 4.
Pleasant
Neutral
Unpleasant
Very
Unpleasant
Unbearable
2. How often have you experienced this odor?
Very Often
Fairly Often
Occasionally
Never I I
If you have experienced the odor, where?
Indoors
Outdoors
Both Indoors and Outdoors .
3. If you were to experience an odor just
like this outdoors, would you find it
objectionable?
Yes
No
If an odor just like this occurred out-
doors, should someone take steps to
reduce it?
Yes
No
-------
and Figure 3 is a view from the right rear showing the odor source/generator set mounted on vibration
isolators, the engine's exhaust system, the fuel tank, and some of the odor presentation and fume removal
ductwork. Figure 4 is a detailed view of the dilution control system used for the 1969 survey, showing the
exhaust pipe at left, the dilution air duct at right, the exhaust line running between the exhaust pipe and
the dilution air duct, the bypass, and the pneumatic cylinders and bellcranks which were attached to the
exhaust and bypass dampers. Figure 5 shows the same view as Figure 4, except for revisions made for the
1970 survey. The "stops" underneath the pneumatic cylinders can be set to limit damper travel at any
point desired, and this point was different for each odor level. Figure 6 shows the same area again, but this
time as set up for running the final test with no diesel odor present. Note that the bypass line has been
removed and that a solid plate has been inserted between the halves of the flange nearest the dilution air
duct to block the exhaust flow.
The interior space of the Sniffmobile was unchanged for 1970, as shown in Figure 7. Other views of
the interior are given in the report on the 1969 survey, and the reader should refer to them for more detail.
The remaining major modifications concerned treatment of the dilution air supply in an effort to control its
humidity and more effectively remove ambient odors. Figure 8 is a schematic of the revised system,
showing the spray chamber and heat exchanger which have been added. In the original Sniffmobile design,
approximately 250 CFM of air, filtered by particulate and charcoal filters, was piped from the front
mechanical compartment to the rear engine compartment where a relatively small amount of exhaust was
added. The amount of exhaust added depended on the desired odor level, and this same general setup was
Figure 3. View of Mobile Laboratory from the Right
Rear Showing Generator Set/Odor Source
in Rear Compartment
Figure 4. Odor Dilution Control System Used
in 1969 Survey
Figure 5. Odor Dilution Control System Used
in 1970 Survey
Figure 6. System Set Up for Tests with No Diesel Odor
-------
used for the 1970 survey with better dilution air clean-
up. The design requirement was to supply diluent air as
odor-free as practical at a constant temperature of
75°F and at a constant absolute humidity of
64 grains water per pound dry air (50% relative
humidity). Other considerations were that the system
would have to be compatible with the Sniffmobile
weight, and space and power requirements. The sys-
tem selected is very similar to the one which has
proved satisfactory in the stationary SwRI odor eval-
uation laboratory. This system uses an air "washing"
method in which the diluent air, after having passed
through charcoal and particulate filters, goes through
a chamber into which water is sprayed. The water is
circulated through a heat exchanger which maintains
a water temperature of 53°F, and, at the exit of the spray chamber, the air is saturated at a temperature of
about 55°F. The air passes through another charcoal filter, then through an insulated duct to the rear of the
Sniffmobile. At this point, a small amount of electrical reheat is applied so that, after the diesel exhaust is
added, the mixture temperature is 75°F.
Figure 7. Interior of Odor Evaluation Room
Looking Toward Rear
I—
Fume Removal
Dilution Air
Exhaust
Diluted Exhaust
H2O
Circulation
oo oo ooo ooo
^"^- Stools ^_
o
Ramp
Filter
Air Conditioner
Engine/
Generator
Compartment
Odor Evaluation Room
Mechanical/
Environmental
Control Compartment
Figure 8. Schematic of Mobile Odor Evaluation Laboratory Showing Revised Dilution Air
Purification/Humidity Control System
The new items of hardware include the spray chamber, an additional refrigeration unit to cool the spray
water, the heat exchanger where the cooling takes place, a water makeup system for the spray chamber, and
additional insulation on the duct which carries the dilution air from the front of the Sniffmobile to the rear.
Addition of the refrigeration unit and recirculating pump created a substantial increase in electrical load on the
generator, which in turn created a requirement for additional power from the engine/odor source. Since the
engine operated at a different power setting for the 1969 and 1970 surveys, the control/odor intensity
relationship changed to some extent. Figure 9 (both Figures 9 and 10 were taken before modifications were
made) is a view into the front mechanical compartment from the door, facing forward. At the top of the
picture is the main air inlet duct, and the condensation overflow tank for the main air-conditioning system is at
the lower right. Figure 10 shows the main air-conditioning blower and odor room air ducts facing from the
front of the mechanical compartment back toward the odor presentation room. The dilution air duct can be
seen below the odor room air duct, and the interior of the odor presentaton room can just be seen through the
door at left. Figures 11 through 13 were taken after the modifications for the 1970 survey were complete.
Figure 11 shows a portion of the mechanical compartment through the door from the odor evaluation room.
-------
Figure 9. View of Front Mechanical Compartment,
Facing Forward, 1969 Configuration
Figure 10. View of Front Mechanical Compartment,
Facing Rearward, 1969 Configuration
Figure 11. View Into Front Mechan-
ical Compartment from
Odor Evaluation Room,
1970 Configuration
The heat exchanger for the spray water is on the
floor at right and the spray chamber is forward
over the refrigeration units. Figure 12 was taken
from the same spot as Figure 9, and shows the
additional refrigeration unit at the bottom left (at
the front of the compartment). Figure 13 was
taken from the same place as Figure 10, and shows
the new insulation covering the duct which carries
dilution air back to the point where it is mixed
with exhaust.
Figure 12. View of Front Mechanical Compartment,
Facing Forward, 1970 Configuration
(Comparable with Figure 9)
Figure 13. View of Front Mechanical Compartment,
Facing Rearward, 1970 Configuration
(Comparable with Figure 10)
Taken together, these modifications did achieve the set goals. The odor samples were presented at
constant temperature and humidity. The additional odor removal provided by the spray chamber allowed
operation at a very low odor level when the exhaust and dilution systems were disconnected for the final
test (Site 06).
-------
IV- CALIBRATION OF THE MOBILE LABORATORY
Calibration of the Sniffmobile for the 1970 survey was similar to calibration for the 1969 survey,
except that the aim was to achieve one fixed odor intensity level for each test site rather than three. The
exhaust and bypass dampers were mechanically fixed in position during on-site operations of the 1970
survey, which fixed the exhaust-to-dilution air ratio and the odor intensity at a constant level. The nominal
diesel composite intensities which were the goals of the calibration processes were "D-2", "D-3", "D-4',
"D-5", and "D-6", and it was also desired to disconnect the exhaust line entirely prior to the survey at the
last test site in order to get responses to air alone. In chronological order, the nominal odor "D" intensities
sought were 4, 5, 6, 3, 2, and, finally, the sample containing no diesel exhaust.
As was the case with the 1969 calibration and with other work involving the trained SwRI odor
panel, multiple runs were made and intensities were presented in random order. In most cases, 10 panelists
were present, but occasionally there were 9 or 11. In averaging of the intensity and quality ratings, the
number of persons on the panel for any given run determined the weight given that run, or, in other words,
the value of any one panelist's rating was always the same.
Table 1 is a summary of the calibraton results, and the pertinent raw data are given in Appendix C.
Figure 14 shows these data graphically with the "B", "0", "A", and "P" ratings as functions of the "D"
rating. This graph is similar to Figure 24 of the report on the 1969 survey, even though the independent
variables differ, since the "D" rating and the "signal pressure" last year were almost directly proportional to
one another. Another probable reason that the qualities bore approximately the same relationships to
intensity during the 1970 calibration as they did during the 1969 calibration is that the fuels used for
calibration and on-site testing were very similar. Table 2 lists specifications for fuels used in both surveys,
and these specifications are nearly identical.
It may be of interest to explain why the nominal and actual odor intensities differ in some cases, and,
in doing so, it is necessary to consider a typical day of calibration by the SwRI odor panel. Assume that it is
the first working day following Sniffmobile operaton at a test site, and that the first requirement is to
confirm the odor intensity used at the previous site. The mechanical arrangement by which the dilution
(and therefore the odor intensity) is fixed permits the presentation of samples up to and including the fixed
intensity, but not exceeding it. For instance, if the previous odor level used had been a nominal "D-4", the
system would permit anything up to a "D-4", but nothing above. The odor panel is presented a randomly
ordered set of samples having intensities up to and including the one previously used (to avoid removing the
"stops" which limited the odor intensity), and the runs at the fixed maximum intensity are averaged for
calibration purposes. Once the odor level has been confirmed, the "stops" are removed and the remainder
of the day is used for panel practice and to get some idea how the controls should be set to obtain the next
intensity desired.
Table 1. Summary of Sniffmobile Calibration Results
Nominal "D"
Level (Goal)
2
3
4
5
6
0
Test
Site
5
4
1
2
3
6
Dates of
Calibration
11/3 and 11/6
10/27 and 11/2
9/22 and 9/30
10/6 and 10/15
10/20 and 10/26
11/10 and 11/16
Dates of Test
Site Operation
11/4 to 11/6
10/28 to 10/30
9/23 to 9/25
10/7 to 10/9
10/21 to 10/23
11/11 toll/13
Calibrated Odor Intensity and Qualities
D
2.00
3.16
3.82
4.90
5.82
0.38
B
0.96
1.00
1.11
1.63
1.90
0.18
0
0.66
0.94
1.02
1.22
1.43
0.09
A
0.34
0.81
0.94
0.98
1.13
0.08
P
0.05
0.38
0.74
1.00
1.06
0.00
10
-------
Figure 14. Odor Panel "B," "0," "A," and "P" Quality Ratings as Functions
of "D" Intensity Ratings
The morning of the second calibration day is
used for an additional series of runs over the whole
range of the system and the results are normally
graphed. From this graph, the control setting required
to obtain the next odor intensity desired is estimated,
and the "stops" on the control system are set accord-
ingly. In order to get a relatively large number of
calibration runs at the "set point," the stops cannot
be moved again, which causes the discrepancies
between nominal and actual odor levels. For the pur-
poses of this study, it was not necessary to survey at
exactly the nominal odor levels, so the calibration
procedure described was considered sufficient.
The one exception to the calibration procedure
described was the nominal "zero" odor. In order to
get the odor level as low as possible, the exhaust line
between the exhaust system and the dilution system
was removed and the resulting holes were capped.
The odor presentation system was purged for several
days, during which time the water in the humidity
control subsystem was changed frequently (this sub-
system also worked as a "scrubber" to remove odors
from the dilution air). The odor panel was brought in
following the purge period and it evaluated the
"odor" several times. It was impossible at this point,
of course, to present anything except the nominal
"zero" odor, since the exhaust line had been discon-
nected. This procedure was repeated immediately
Table 2. Comparison of Fuels Used in 1969
and 1970 Surveys
Distillation Range, °F
Initial boiling point
1 0% point
20% point
30% point
40% point
50% point
60% point
70% point
80% point
90% point
End point
Percent recovery
Percent residue
Percent distillation loss
Cetane Number
F.I. A. Analysis
percent aromatics
percent olefins
percent saturates
Total Sulfur, percent
Gravity, °API at 60°F
1969 Survey
EM-70-F
338
364
372
380
387
395
404
412
427
449
521
99.5
0.5
0.0
47.0
15.0
0.0
85.0
0.05
44.6
1970 Survey
EM-165-F
321
360
370
380
389
397
407
419
433
455
499
99.0
1.0
0.0
-
14.9
3.8
81.3
0.09
44.2
11
-------
following the "no odor" survey to make certain nothing had contaminated the system. The consensus of
the odor panel was that a slight "dusty" residual odor remained after the purge period, and this opinion is
reflected by the average odor panel rating of "D-0.38" for this condition. The panel was instructed to rate
the nominal "zero" odor against the standards of the PHS Q/I kit, but the rating of this odor probably
means little because the comparison breaks down when the odor does not contain characteristics similar to
those in the kit. The "D-0.38" rating should be construed only as the intensity of the residual odor, and the
corresponding "B", "O", "A", and "P" ratings were an unsuccessful attempt to characterize the odor.
12
-------
V. PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
The 1970 survey of public opinion on diesel engine exhaust odors was carried out in San Antonio at
six locations. Only one odor was presented to participants at a test site, and the participants were observed
carefully by the survey crew to make sure none of them took part in the survey twice at the same site. In
addition, the sites were far enough apart to make it unlikely that the same person ever participated in the
survey more than once, even if the crew forgot some of the participants' faces. This changing of test sites
was done to minimize the risk of a "history" or "previous experience" effect on the response of any
participant. Figure 15 is a map of San Antonio showing test site locations, and it can be used for reference
as the sites are described.
ROUTE MAP OF
SAN ANTONIO
To Jourdanton
Figure 15. Map of San Antonio Showing Test Site Locations
Test site 01 was Main Plaza in downtown San Antonio, approximately in the center of the map. This
site was also used during the 1969 survey. It is a public square with good pedestrian traffic and a population
mixed in practically every regard. The location of the Sniffmobile was along the curb on the west side of
the square, and Figure 16 shows the location during operation. The days during which operations were
conducted at Main Plaza were September 23, 24, and 25, 1970.
At Main Plaza, as well as the other test sites, at least one member of the survey crew was bilingual in
English and Spanish. This procedure was followed because a sizeable fraction of the San Antonio popula-
tion speaks Spanish, and the crew needed an interpreter to conduct the survey with Spanish-speaking
people.
Test site 02 was Northwest Center, which is one of the oldest shopping centers on the north side of
San Antonio. On the map, this site is between Interstate 10 and Fredericksburg Road (Business Route 87)
13
-------
.. L-r» -i * i
Figure 16. Test Site 01, West Side
of Main Plaza
Figure 17. Test Site 02, Northwest
Shopping Center
NIFFMOBILE
• OPINION ODOR
TING SURVEY
(WEST RESEARCH !»
OF HEflLTH. EDUCSTC
Figure 18. Test Site 03, Sears
Southside Store
Figure 19. Test Site 04, McCreless
Shopping City
Figure 20. Test Site 05, Lackland
Plaza Shopping Center
Figure 21. Test Site 06, Spartan-
Atlantic Store
14
-------
about five miles northwest of the downtown area. The area around this test site is commercial and
residential, and most of the people who live nearby are in the middle economic brackets. Over 50 percent
of the local residents are Caucasian. The site was in front of a TG&Y (five and dime) store, and near a
sidewalk which fronted along several other stores. The dates of operation at site 02 were October 7, 8, and
9, 1970, and Figure 17 shows the general appearance of the site and surrounding area.
The Sears, Roebuck & Co. Southside Store provided the location for test site 03. This location is
directly south of the downtown area, as shown in Figure 15, at the intersection of Military Drive and
Pleasanton Road. The surrounding area is predominantly commercial, and the nearby residents are mostly
in the middle socio-ecomonic groups. Somewhat less than 50 percent of the local people here are Caucasian,
with the majority being Mexican-American. October 21, 22, and 23 were the dates of operation at site 03,
and a view of the location is given in Figure 18.
The fourth test site location was near a large Handy-Andy food store in McCreless Shopping City, a
large shopping center on the city's southeast side. This location is near the intersection of Goliad Road and
Southeast Military Drive (Loop 13), and the participants at this location were mostly in the middle
socio-economic classes and well mixed as to ethnic groups. The surrounding area is mostly lower middle
class residential. Days of operation at site 04 were October 28, 29, and 30,1970, and the appearance of the
location is shown in Figure 19.
Lackland Plaza shopping center was the location of test site 05, on the west side of San Antonio near
Lackland Air Force Base. This shopping center is rather small, but adequate pedestrian traffic was found by
locating near a food store. The surrounding area is commercial and residential, and the local population is
mostly in the middle socio-economic group and mostly Caucasian. Operations were conducted at this
location on November 4, 5, and 6, and the site is shown in Figure 20.
The final test site was a Spartan-Atlantic (discount department) store near the intersection of
Loop 410 and Goliad Road. Site 06 is located in an area dominated by Brooks Air Force Base, and the area
is primarily commercial. Less than half the nearby residents are Caucasian in this area, and the people are
predominantly in the middle socio-economic classes. The dates of operation at this site were November 11,
12, and 13, and the location is shown in Figure 21.
As a general rule, data were tabulated immediately following a group's participation in the survey,
but, sometimes, there was not sufficient time to tabulate the data as they were collected. Data from the
day's work, however, were tabulated in time to provide a guideline for the following day's sampling. The
population data on which sampling quotas were based were supplied by Mrs. Carol Richards of NORC.(^)
The income data supplied were from the 1967 Current Population Survey, and the other data were from
the 1968 version of the same source. Table 3 lists the data from which quotas were composed and the
quotas of people needed based on a "perfect" sample of 200 persons. All these data refer to the segment of
the population which is over 14 years of age, and the complete set of data sent by NORC is given in
Appendix A. Each of the quotas is independent of the others; e.g., if a certain person was between 35 and
44 years of age, he counted as part of the quota for the 35 to 44 age group no matter what other categories
he occupied.
Most of the quotas were filled at all the test sites, but the ones hardest to fill were the same as in the
1969 survey, namely 0 to 8 years of education and age 65 and above. The case must be that undereducated
people are simply less likely to participate in the survey than well-educated people are, and that the same
thing holds true for older people. It is also probable, of course, that a smaller percentage of older people
(65 and above) are to be found in shopping centers and plazas than other age groups.
A copy of the standarized instructions which were given verbally to the participants is included as
Appendix B. This set of instructions was revised somewhat from the 1969 version to reflect the change
from multiple to single odor presentation and to give special instructions to those participants who did not
perceive the odor presented.
15
-------
Table 3. Percent Distributions Based on the U.S. Population
Category
Sex: Male
Female
Age: 15-24 yr
25-34 yr
35-44 yr
45-64 yr
65 yr or more
Education: 0-8 yr
Some high school
Completed high school
Some college
Completed 4 yr college
Income: under $4,000
$4,000-$6,999
$7,00049,999
$10,000414,999
$15,000 or more
Percent of
U.S. Population
48.5
51.5
25.1
16.4
16.6
28.5
13.3
27.9
22.1
30.7
10.6
8.7
18.8
22.6
24.3
22.4
12.0
Quota, Based on
Sample of 200
97
103
50
33
33
57
26
56
44
61
21
17
38
45
49
45
24
16
-------
VI. RESULTS
The results of this survey supplement those of the 1969 five-city survey in several ways, but the 1970
results are more complex due to the inclusion of additional odor intensities. Where possible, direct compari-
sons between 1969 and 1970 data will be made, but the report on the 1969 survey should be available for
reference purposes.
A. Summaries of Odor Response Data and Demographic Characteristics of the Partici-
pants, Nominal Odor Intensities 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
Tables 4 through 8 are site-by-site summaries of answers given on the questionnaires, and the tables
are numbered in order of increasing intensity of the odor presented. Several corrections have been made in
these data which reflect the greater accuracy of the computer analysis as compared to the rough data
calculated on-site. The five tables represent the primary reduction of data from the raw form given in
Appendix D.
The cartoon-scale responses to the odors tested are given in a more concise form in Table 9. The
number of participants who chose each cartoon at each test site is on the left side, while the fraction of
participants who chose each cartoon and the average cartoon number chosen are on the right side.
Figure 22 shows the fraction of participants who chose each cartoon for each odor intensity tested.
These curves are similar to those in Figure 62 of the report on the 1969 study, and show a progression to
the right (toward higher cartoon numbers) of the means of the distributions as the odor intensity increases.
For example, the mean numerical rating of the "D-2" odor intensity was 2.63, and that for the nominal
"D-6" intensity was 3.70, considerably further to the right. Curves of this nature are usually called "relative
Table 4. Summary of Odor Opinion Data-Test Site 05
Nominal "D" level of odor presented
Actual "D" level of odor presented
Number of participants
Sex:
Male
Female
Age:
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-64
65 and over
Education:
0-8 yr
Some high school
Completed high school
Some college
Completed 4 yr college
Activity :
Employed
Housewife
Student
Retired
Other
Employment:
Professional
Clerical
Skilled
Other
Income :
Under $4,000
$ 4,000-$6,999
$ 7,00049,999
$10,000414,999
$15, 000 or more
2
2.00
414
197
217
117
109
96
75
17
30
89
130
119
46
191
129
54
29
11
55
40
55
41
65
123
100
97
29
Did you smell anything?
Yes
No
Cartoon response:
Pleasant (1)
Neutral (2)
Unpleasant (3)
Very unpleasant (4)
Unbearable (5)
How often have you experienced
this odor?
Very often
Fairly often
Occasionally
Never
If you have experienced the odor.
where?
Indoors
Outdoors
Both indoors and outdoors
If you were to experience an odor just
like this outdoors, would you find it
objectionable?
Yes
No
If an odor just like this occurred outdoors
should someone take steps to reduce it?
Yes
No
367
47
25
135
168
30
9
103
127
118
19
27
258
63
242
125
288
79
17
-------
Table 5. Summary of Odor Opinion Data-Test Site 04
Nominal "D" level of odor presented
Actual "D" level of odor presented
Number of participants
Sex:
Male
Female
Age:
15-24
25-34
3544
45-64
65 and over
Education:
0-8 yr
Some high school
Completed high school
Some college
Completed 4 yr college
Activity:
Employed
Housewife
Student
Retired
Other
Employment:
Professional
Clerical
Skilled
Other
Income:
Under $4,000
$ 4,000-$6,999
$ 7,000-$9,999
$10,000-114,999
$15,000 or more
3
3.16
308
148
160
72
54
41
87
54
44
67
91
86
20
126
104
29
44
5
30
32
46
19
72
71
79
57
29
Did you smell anything?
Yes
No
Cartoon response:
Pleasant (1)
Neutral (2)
Unpleasant (3)
Very unpleasant (4)
Unbearable (5)
How often have you experienced
this odor?
Very often
Fairly often
Occasionally
Never
If you have experienced the odor.
where?
Indoors
Outdoors
Both indoors and outdoors
If you were to experience an odor just
like this outdoors, would you find it
objectionable?
Yes
No
If an odor just like this occurred outdoors
should someone take steps to reduce it?
Yes
No
299
9
14
67
167
47
4
112
82
92
13
18
222
46
237
62
256
43
Table 6. Summary of Odor Opinion Data—Test Site 01
Nominal "D" level of odor presented
Actual "D" level of odor presented
Number of participants
Sex:
Male
Female
A8e:
15-24
25-34
3544
45-64
65 and over
Education:
0-8 yr
Some high school
Completed high school
Some college
Completed 4 yr college
Activity:
Employed
Housewife
Student
Retired
Other
Employment:
Professional
Clerical
Skilled
Other
Income:
Under $4,000
$ 4,000-$6,999
$ 7,000-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000 or more
4
3.82
324
184
140
101
78
55
63
27
56
63
67
73
65
228
24
20
28
24
72
87
51
18
101
88
53
51
31
Did you smell anything?
Yes
No
Cartoon response:
Pleasant (1)
Neutral (2)
Unpleasant (3)
Very unpleasant (4)
Unbearable (5)
How often have you experienced
this odor?
Very often
Fairly often
Occasionally
Never
If you have experienced the odor,
where?
Indoors
Outdoors
Both indoors and outdoors
If you were to experience an odor just
like this outdoors, would you Qnd it
objectionable?
Yes
No
If an odor just like this occurred outdoors,
should someone take steps to reduce it?
Yes
No
317
7
12
58
160
68
19
148
81
66
22
23
242
38
262
55
288
29
18
-------
Table 7. Summary of Odor Opinion Data-Test Site 02
Nominal "D" level of odor presented
Actual "D" level of odor presented
Number of participants
Sex:
Male
Female
Age:
15-24
25-34
3544
45-64
65 and over
Education.
0-8 yr
Some high school
Completed high school
Some college
Completed 4 yr college
Activity :
Employed
Housewife
Student
Retired
Other
Employment:
Professional
Clerical
Skilled
Other
Income:
Under $4,000
$ 4,000-16,999
» 7,000-$9,999
»10,000-$14,999
$15,000 or more
5
4.90
288
115
173
60
77
36
80
35
34
53
65
92
44
129
107
17
27
8
51
41
28
9
64
62
75
57
30
Did you smell anything?
Yes
No
Cartoon response :
Pleasant (1)
Neutral (2)
Unpleasant (3)
Very unpleasant (4)
Unbearable (5)
How often have you experienced
this odor?
Very often
Fairly often
Occasionally
Never
If you have experienced the odor,
where?
Indoors
Outdoors
Both indoors and outdoors
If you were to experience an odor just
like this outdoors, would you find it
objectionable?
Yes
No
If an odor just like this occurred outdoors,
should someone take steps to reduce it?
Yes
No
287
1
5
31
134
88
29
121
89
65
12
12
226
37
261
26
270
17
Table 8. Summary of Odor Opinion Data-Test Site 03
Nominal "D" level of odor presented
Actual "D" level of odor presented
Number of participants
Sex:
Male
Female
Age:
15-24
25-34
3544
45-64
65 and over
Education:
0-8 yr
Some high school
Completed high school
Some college
Completed 4 yr college
Activity:
Employed
Housewife
Student
Retired
Other
Employment:
Professional
Clerical
Skilled
Other
Income:
Under $4,000
$ 4,000-56,999
$ 7,00049,999
$10,000414,999
$15, 000 or more
6
5.82
356
135
221
81
82
73
82
38
50
64
112
94
36
153
139
25
31
8
55
40
41
17
69
101
92
63
31
Did you smell anything?
Yes
No
Cartoon response:
Pleasant (1)
Neutral (2)
Unpleasant (3)
Very unpleasant (4)
Unbearable (5)
How often have you experienced
this odor?
Very often
Fairly often
Occasionally
Never
If you have experienced the odor.
where?
Indoors
Outdoors
Both indoors and outdoors
If you were to experience an odor just
like this outdoors, would you find it
objectionable?
Yes
No
If an odor just like this occurred outdoors
should someone take steps to reduce it?
Yes
No
353
3
3
23
136
108
83
156
109
83
5
14
293
41
316
37
330
23
19
-------
o.e r
0.4
Li.
•g 0.2
cc
0.6
g 0.4
3
ty
£
u.
I
«
£ 0.2
D = 2.00
1 23 45
Cartoon Number
D = 3.82
12345
4\
3
Cartoon Number
0.61-
0.4
•g 0.2
oc
0.6
« 0.4
0)
I
LL
.1
I 0.2
DC
3.16
0.6
I 0.4
0.2
12345
Cartoon Number
D = 4.90
Mean
12345
Cartoon Number
D = 5.82
12345
Figure 22. Fraction of Participants Who Chose Each Cartoon, Five Odor Levels
20
-------
Table 9. Cartoon-Scale Responses to the Odors Tested
Nominal Odor
Intensity
2
3
4
5
6
Test
Site
5
4
1
2
3
Simple
Size
414
308
324
288
356
Number Who Chose Cartoon No.
1
25
14
12
5
3
2
135
67
58
31
23
3
168
167
160
134
136
4
30
47
68
88
108
5
9
4
19
29
83
Fiaction Who Chose Cartoon No.
1
0.068
0.047
0.038
0.017
0.008
2
0.368
0.224
0.183
0.108
0.065
3
0.458
0.558
0.505
0.467
0.385
4
0.082
0.157
0.214
0.307
0.306
5
0.024
0.013
0.060
0.101
0.235
Average Cartoon
Number Chosen
2.63
2.87
3.08
3.37
3.70
frequency polygons" or "discrete relative frequency distributions." Figure 23 gives a comparison between
the 1969 survey data and the 1970 survey data as well as a graphic look at the variation of the mean
cartoon number chosen as a function of the odor intensity. The 1970 cartoon response data show a greater
dislike for the weak diesel odors than was the case with the previous study, but this trend is reversed at the
higher odor intensities. The major causes of the lack of agreement are likely to be associated with the
change from the "three-odor" to the "one-odor" experimental plan, although a greater public awareness of
environmental problems during the 1970 survey may have had some effect at the lower odor levels. (This
effect, if it did exist, would have been more noticeable at the lower odor intensities because the "signal"
was weaker there.) The San Antonio participants in the 1970 survey showed a greater concern about
environmental problems than the San Antonio participants of 1969, and their attitude was reminiscent of
the Los Angeles participants of 1969. The participants in the 1969 survey, knowing that there were two
odor samples yet to come, may have adopted a somewhat noncommittal "wait and see" attitude about the
first odor, which would have moved the average response toward "neutral." The 1970 participants, how-
ever, knew they had only one chance to evaluate an odor and this knowledge may have affected their
opinions, but neither the direction nor the extent of this possible effect is known.
Table 10 is a summary of answers given on the back of the questionnaire except the above-described
cartoon scale ratings. The fractions of the participants who perceived the odors (curve A), wanted them
reduced (curve B), and found them objectionable (curve C) are plotted as functions of odor intensity in
Figure 24. The ordinates plotted are all quite high, unexpectedly so in most cases, but current theories of
odor detection and evaluation make these results more plausible A4) Reference 4 is Dr. Turk's comments on
this project's Quarterly Progress Report No. 3, and is included as part of Appendix A. Referring now to
curve A, it should be noted that about 89 percent of the participants indicated that they perceived an odor
when the least intense odor was presented. In the light of odor detection being a problem of "signal-to-
noise ratio," as Dr. Turk proposes in his remarks^4), it is quite possible that the number of participants who
perceived the mild diesel odor plus those who scored a "false alarm" could combine to make up 89 percent
of the total. This same argument applies as well to the groups of people who sampled the higher odor
1969 San Antonio
1970
-4-
Actual Odor "D" Rating
Figure 23. Average Cartoon-Number Responses for 1969 and 1970 Survey Data
21
-------
Table 10. Responses to Questions on Back of Questionnaire,
Except Cartoon Ratings
Fraction of total sample which:
Perceived an odor ("yes" to Question 1)
Found odor objectionable ("yes" to Question 3)
Wanted odor reduced ("yes" to Question 4)
Of those who perceived odor, fraction which:
Experienced it; very often
fairly often
occasionally
never
Experienced it; indoors
outdoors
both indoors and outdoors
Found odor objectionable ("yes" to Question 3)
Wanted odor reduced ("yes" to Question 4)
Nominal Odor Intensity
2
0.886
0.584
0.696
0.280
0.345
0.321
0.054
0.080
0.738
0.181
0.659
0.785
3
0.971
0.769
0.831
0.374
0.274
0.308
0.043
0.063
0.774
0.164
0.793
0.856
4
0.978
0.808
0.889
0.467
0.256
0.208
0.069
0.076
0.799
0.125
0.827
0.909
5
0.996
0.907
0.938
0.422
0.310
0.226
0.042
0.044
0.822
0.134
0.909
0.941
6
0.992
0.888
0.927
0.422
0.309
0.235
0.014
0.040
0.842
0.118
0.895
0.935
0.9
0.8
-OA
Fraction of All Participants Which: A; Perceived Odor
B; Wanted Odor Reduction
C; Considered Odor Objectionable
0 I |r
Odor Panel "D" Rating
Figure 24. Responses to Questions 1,3, and 4 on Back of Questionnaire
intensities, but the importance of the "noise" effect becomes smaller and smaller as the strength of the
"signal" increases. It is doubtful that the "noise" had any appreciable significance for odors more intense
than "D-3".
The responses to Questions 3 and 4 on the back of the questionnaire were very similar (curves C and
B of Figure 24, respectively), which was to be expected. Not expected, however, was the consistent margin
by which "yes" responses to Question 4 on desirability of odor reduction outscored those to Question 3 on
22
-------
odor objectionability. It does not seem reasonable that people who do not consider odors objectionable
would want them reduced, but perhaps these people who answered "yes" to Question 4 and "no" to
Question 3 were saying, "I don't find the odor objectionable myself, but perhaps others would, so I'll
indicate that it should be reduced just to be on the safe side." Table 11 gives an indication of the pattern of
responses to Questions 3 and 4. Note that very few participants answered "yes" to Question 3 and "no" to
Question 4, but that a somewhat larger number answered "yes" to Question 4 and "no" to Question 3.
Table 11. Responses to Questions on Objectionability and Odor Reduction
Possible Combinations of
Answers to Questions
3
(Odor
Objectionability)
Yes
Yes
No
No
4
(Desirability of
Odor Reduction)
Yes
No
Yes
No
Fraction of Those Who Perceived an Odor
Which Answered Questions 3 and 4 as
Shown at Left for Each Nominal Odor
Intensity
2
0.649
0.011
0.136
0.204
3
0.779
0.013
0.077
0.131
4
0.798
0.028
0.111
0.063
5
0.889
0.021
0.052
0.038
6
0.881
0.014
0.054
0.051
It appears that curves B and C of Figure 24, as well as Curve A and the data presented in Tables 10
and 11, approach constant ordinates as the odor intensity progresses beyond some point. These data (in
Tables 10 and 11) exhibit a considerable amount of "scatter," which is characteristic of statistics based on
small samples, but they seem to show little or no dependence on odor intensity above the nominal "D-5" level.
As further illustrations of this point, Figures 25 and 26 have been prepared using data from Table 10.
Some scatter is again in evidence in the curves of Figure 25, but it is evident that they are approaching
constant values as the odor becomes more intense. It is also interesting to note that the odors were
1.0,-
S
1
o 0.6
a
0.2
0 r 2
Very Often
Odor Panel "D" Baling
Figure 25. Responses to First Part of Question 2, Back of Questionnaire
23
-------
0.4
Both Indoors and
Outdoors
Odor Panel "D" Rating
Figure 26. Responses to Second Part of Question 2, Back of Questionnaire
experienced either "very often" or "fairly often" by over 70 percent of the participants who perceived an
odor for nominal "D-4" or greater intensities. Figure 26 shows responses to the second part of Question 2
on whether the odor is found indoors or outdoors as functions of odor intensity, and the increasing fraction
of people identifying the odor as being "outdoor" in character as the intensity increases supports the
hypothesis that the participants tacitly identified the odor, and that an increasing number did so correctly
as the odor intensity increased.
Referring to all the data presented and discussed thus far, the general conclusions to be drawn are
about the same as those drawn from the 1969 survey. Although the absolute levels differ slightly, the
responses to diesel odors in terms of the cartoon scale are very similar for the 1969 and 1970 surveys; that
is, people consistently ranked strong diesel odors further toward the "objectionable" end of the cartoon
scale than mild diesel odors. One intent of the 1970 survey was to eliminate the "history" or previous
experience effect from the participants' evaluations of odors above the "D-2" level, and this goal has been
accomplished. Figure 23 shows responses to the nominal "D-2", "D-4", and "D-6" odor levels for both
surveys, indicating that the "history" effect tended to decrease the cartoon-number response to the
strongest odor, although slightly.
As a portion of the questionnaire validation for the 1969 survey, the cartoon characters were cor-
related with a numerical scale ranging from 0 (pleasant) to 100 (most objectionable) .(1) These correlation
studies were entirely independent of the public opinion survey itself, and consisted of having people place
five "pointers" with the cartoons printed on them along the O-to-100 scale wherever each person felt they
belonged. The correlation equation turned out to be:
position on objectionability scale = 22.32 X (cartoon number) - 15.95.
This equation was derived by the method of least squares using data from independent studies done by
NORC and SwRI. Since no alterations were made to the cartoon scale for the 1970 survey, it is assumed
that the correlation still holds. Figure 27, then, presents several ways of looking at the objectionability of
the diesel odors tested in both the 1969 and 1970 surveys. The top curve marked "1970 Question 3 on
Objectionability" is a duplicate of curve C in Figure 24, the second curve shows answers to the 1969
question, "Are any of these odors so bad that someone should take steps to reduce them?", while the other
24
-------
Most Unpleasant
!100
90
CO
u
C/3
CO
C
O
O
C
O
O
Q.
0
Pleasant
Odor Panel "D" Rating
Figure 21. Objectionability Results of 1969 and 1970 Surveys
25
-------
three lines result from application of the above correlation equation to cartoon scale responses. More
specifically, the three lower curves were generated by plugging the average cartoon response values from the
1969 overall, the 1969 San Antonio, and the 1970 surveys, respectively, into the correlation equation given
above. There is obviously a measurable difference between asking people directly whether or not they find
an odor objectionable and relating their cartoon responses to an objectionability scale. It also seems that
the way a question is asked may have an effect on the response. The following excerpts are from a letter by
Mr. Paul Sheatsley of NORC (with collaboraton by Dr. Ben King) giving comments on preliminary results.
A copy of this letter in its entirety, as well as other pertinent materials from NORC, is included in
Appendix A of this report.
"These questions [on objectionability and odor reduction] were not asked in last year's study, where
the most closely related question was 'Are any of these odors so bad that someone should take steps to
reduce them? IF YES, Which ones?' In San Antonio in 1969 only 23 percent of the respondents said the
D-2 (Test 1) odor was that bad. True, this response was offered after the respondents had been exposed to
the higher levels, thus making it seem less unpleasant by comparison. But this can hardly account for the
difference between 23 percent last year who said it was so bad that someone should take steps to reduce it,
and the 68 percent this year who said it should be reduced.
"In our view, the two questions asked this year must be interpreted extremely carefully. The
responses at the 0 level are indicative [the reader should refer to the section on the nominal "D-0" odor at
this point]. Here, 176 persons said they did not smell anything but 178 said the odor should be reduced.
"It would seem that the two questions in the present study are tapping a much broader domain of
opinion than the respondent's actual experience in the Sniffmobile. While people seem to be rating the
particular odor they have just been exposed to when they mark their cartoon ratings, the intrusion of
questions about odor reduction and objectionability may shift their consideration to broader questions of
environmental pollution.
"The first question asks if it is objectionable, and in these days of publicity about pollution, it is
perhaps natural for many people to say that any odor, unless obviously pleasant, is objectionable. It is
interesting that more people say the odor should be reduced than find it objectionable; this is true at every
D level.
"It seems that the question 'Should this odor be reduced?' is pretty hard to say No to. It may well be
true that public opinion is more anti-odor this year than last year, but we feel that last year's question was a
better one. 'Is the odor so bad that someone should take steps to reduce it?' suggests that the odor is not
just mildly unpleasant but is really so bad that someone, presumably at a certain effort or cost, should take
action against it. Even if administered after a single test of one "D" level, we believe this question would
produce fewer Yes answers than the question, 'Should this odor be reduced?' "
B. Response Data and Characteristics of Participants, Nominal "D-0" Odor Intensity
This experiment is similar in some ways to the experiments involving characterization of diesel
exhaust odors, but in other ways it is fundamentally different. It is similar because the Sniffmobile was
used, because people were solicited to help with the survey, and because the instructions, questionnaire,
and experimental plan did not change. It is different because the odor presented was almost undetectable
and was entirely dissimilar to diesel exhaust odor, because the participants expected to experience an odor
due to the bulk and complexity of the survey apparatus and the presence of the survey crew, and because
the majority of the questionnaire was inapplicable to all the participants who did not perceive an odor. The
survey crew reported that many of the participants became quite confused when the odor sample was
presented, apparently not sure whether they smelled anything or not. This confusion may be responsible
for some illogical responses.
26
-------
Table 12 gives a summary of questionnaire responses to the nominal "D-0" odor intensity. An
unexpectedly large number of participants (60.4 percent) indicated that they perceived an odor. Although
unexpected, this result is not unreasonable considering that the participants thought they would perceive an
odor, which probably shifted their response criteria toward lower levels of stimulation.^4^ Cartoon-scale
responses to this very mild odor averaged 2.33, or slightly above "neutral" on the scale. If absolutely no
odor had been present and if the participants had been completely unbiased, an even 2.00 (neutral) would
have been the expected result. In fact, however, a slight "dusty" (as characterized by the odor panel)
residual odor was present in the ductwork, and there was certainly nothing pleasant about this odor, hence
the observed response is not unreasonable.
The responses to Question 2 on the back of the questionnaire indicate that the participants had
experienced the "nominal D-0 odor" less frequently than any of the other odors, and that they disagreed
with each other more strongly about where the odor had been perceived. These results indicate a poor
ability to recognize the odor, which in turn suggests that, in some cases, the "perception" of an odor was an
effect caused by noise rather than signal (or stimulus). The answers to questions on odor objectionability
Table 12. Summary of Data-Test Site 06
Nominal "D" level of odor presented
Actual "D" level of odor presented
Number of participants
Sex:
Male
Female
Age:
15-24
25-34
35-14
45-64
65 and over
Education:
0-8 yr
Some high school
Completed high school
Some college
Completed 4 yr college
Activity:
Employed
Housewife
Student
Retired
Other
Employment:
Professional
Clerical
Skilled
Other
Income:
Under $4,000
$ 4,00046,999
$ 7,00049,999
$10,000414,999
$15, 000 or more
0
0.38
445
205
240
113
106
83
101
42
57
96
144
111
37
222
143
29
40
11
55
52
86
29
101
136
102
76
30
Did you smell anything?
Yes
No
Cartoon response :
Pleasant (1)
Neutral (2)
Unpleasant (3)
Very unpleasant (4)
Unbearable (5)
How often have you experienced
this odor?
Very often
Fairly often
Occasionally
Never
If you have experienced the odor,
where?
Indoors
Outdoors
Both indoors and outdoors
If you were to experience an odor just
like this outdoors, would you find it
objectionable?
Yes
No
If an odor just like this occurred outdoors,
should someone take steps to reduce it?
Yes
No
269
176
31
134
88
16
0
37
57
139
36
41
140
52
146
123
178
91
27
-------
and odor reduction are perhaps unexpected also, with 32.8 pecent of the participants finding the odor
objectionable and 39.8 percent wanting the odor reduced. Quoting again from Dr. Turk's report:^ '
"With regard to the nominal D-zero level, however, the fact that most people answered 'yes' to the
question 'Did you smell anything?' is noteworthy. Such an answer cannot be understood in terms of the
classical assumption of psychophysics that the sensory system (man's olfaction in this case) has a fixed
cutoff or an absolute threshold for stimulation that would elicit a positive response. This theory of a fixed
cutoff is now losing support. (T.Engen, "Man's Ability to Perceive Odors," Chapter 12 in Advances in
Chemoreception, Volume 1, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1970). In its place, a detection theory
based on a decision analysis model of psychophysical threshold has been proposed by Green and Swets
(Green, D.M. and Swets, J.A. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics, New York, Wiley, 1966). In
essence, detection theory proposes that there is no fixed cutoff of perception, and, therefore, no stimulus
or sensory threshold at all. In its place, the problem of detecting a stimulus may be considered as a problem
of signal-to-noise ratio. Whenever an experiment presents a stimulus, there will also be some noise because
of external uncontrollable events, variability in the stimulus, or spontaneous internal events, such as
random actions of the nerve cells. It is assumed that such noise has an effect on the sensory system of the
same general quality as the stimulus itself, and that there is therefore no fixed criterion that the observer
can apply to his sensation to be able to make a sharp difference between 'Yes, I smelled something' versus
'No, I did not smell anything.' Instead of considering the task as one of categorizing experiences into two
classes (detection and lack of detection), the detection theory considers it to be analogous to statistical
sampling and deciding whether the response was caused by a particular stimulus or by noise. In other
words, there is always a sensory event. The question is therefore not whether the sensory event occurred
but whether the sensory event was produced by the stimulus or by the noise. The response of the observer
therefore depends on his conception of the situation, that is, on the criterion by which he decides whether
he smelled something or not.
"Engen has shown that the criterion by which a person decides whether or not an odor is present can
be manipulated over wide ranges by such small rewards and punishments as the gain or loss of a few cents.
The situation can be visualized as a payoff matrix with four possibilities.
ISA
DIESEL ODOR
PRESENTED?
YES
NO
RESPONSE
YES
correct
false alarm
NO
miss
correct
"The situation in the 'Sniffmobile' test engenders a large expectation that an odor will be present.
This factor shifts the decision criterion in the direction of a lower level of stimulation (such as could be
produced by random 'noise' with no diesel odor present) and a high rate of 'false alarm' responses. This
result is certainly understandable in terms of detection theory. Also, the hypothesis that the 'yes' response
to the 'D-0' stimulus is an expectation phenomenon is supported by the data that show that this odor was
experienced less frequently than any of the other levels.
"The important point of this aspect of the study is that the cartoon responses averaged close to
'neutral' (or zero on the proposed -1 to +3 scale). I believe that this result contributes to the validation of
the SwRI study because it means that the typical respondent says, in effect, 'All of this elaborate setup
must mean that there is really some sort of odor here, and I suppose if this is so that something should be
done about it, but I don't actually know what kind of a sensation this is, and it really leaves me neutral.' "
Dr. Turk's interpretation assumes that the participant thinks the odor is unpleasant rather than pleasant,
and this assumption is borne out by the data.
28
-------
C. Effects of Demographic Variables on Odor Responses
In the analysis of the 1969 survey data, quite a bit of attention was given to the effects of demo-
graphic variables, but, in the case of the 1970 data, a more concise treatment should be sufficient. Table 13
is a summary of the effects of demographic variables on the cartoon-scale odor ratings and the questions
Table 13. Effects of Demographic Variables on Odor Responses
Category and Level
Sex: Male
Female
Age: 15-24
25-34
35-44
45-64
65 and up
Education: 0-8 yr
9-1 lyr
12 yr
13-15 n
16 yr or more
Income: under $4,000
$ 4,000-$ 6,999
$ 7,000-$ 9,999
$10,000-$ 14,999
$15 ,000 or more
Average Cartoon Response at
Nominal Intensity
1 D-2
2.46
2.76
2.46
2.76
2.68
2.79
1.93
2.23
2.33
2.64
2.71
2.78
2.19
2.63
2.71
2.65
2.52
D-3
2.78
2.95
2.90
2.94
2.72
2.95
2.71
2.77
2.83
2.89
3.00
2.47
2.92
2.83
2.95
2.80
2.75
D-4
3.05
3.11
2.96
3.33
3.11
3.05
2.70
2.90
2.89
3.14
3.16
3.23
2.89
3.16
3.13
3.08
3.32
D-5
3.44
3.32
3.25
3.39
3.47
3.35
3.44
3.42
3.25
3.45
3.29
3.50
3.31
3.27
3.46
3.44
3.30
D-6
3.54
3.79
3.73
3.66
3.75
3.59
3.84
3.90
3.59
3.69
3.67
3.67
3.88
3.70
3.52
3.71
3.74
Fraction of Category Which Objected
to Nominal Intensity
D-2
0.602
0.701
0.581
0.745
0.720
0.657
0.267
0.423
0.553
0.723
0.686
0.732
0.544
0.667
0.770
0.622
0.592
D-3
0.743
0.844
0.7.32
0.846
0.795
0.872
0.686
0.721
0.754
0.818
0.849
0.706
0.690
0.760
0.893
0.870
0.714
D-4
0.845
0.801
0.772
0.846
0.852
0.885
0.783
0.788
0.742
0.833
0.890
0.859
0.771
0.814
0.868
0.824
0.968
D-5
0.956
0.879
0.867
0.883
0.972
0.925
0.941
0.879
0.906
0.954
0.891
0.909
0.844
0.935
0.919
0.930
0.933
D-6
0.895
0.895
0.889
0.902
0.930
0.866
0.892
0.854
0.875
0.919
0.926
0.833
0.926
0.848
0.913
0.905
0.903
Fraction of Category Which Wanted
Reduction of Nominal Intensity
D-2
0.747
0.816
0.819
0.816
0.805
0.761
0.333
0.577
0.724
0.832
0.800
0.854
0.667
0.772
0.874
0.805
0.741
D-3
0.799
0.916
0.859
0.885
0.820
0.907
0.765
0.791
0.831
0.875
0.930
0.647
0.760
0.803
0.973
0.889
0.857
D-4
0.906
0.912
0.931
0.897
0.944
0.902
0.783
0.846
0.822
0.939
0.973
0.938
0.844
0.942
0.924
0.902
1.000
D-5
0.930
0.948
0.900
0.961
0.944
0.938
0.970
0.970
0.924
0.954
0.924
0.954
0.922
0.984
0.905
0.982
0.900
D-6
0.925
0.941
0.963
0.927
0.930
0.915
0.946
0.896
0.969
0.946
0.926
0.917
0.956
0.929
0.935
0.936
0.903
regarding odor objectionability and odor control. To present these data graphically and to minimize scatter
due to small samples, the following functions were computed for each level of each category (e.g., males,
females, the 15 to 24 age group,..., etc.) listed in Table 13.
NI = normalized cartoon response
= (sum of average cartoon numbers chosen by members of category) + (sum of average
cartoon numbers chosen by all participants)
N2 = normalized objectionability response
= (sum of fractions of category which considered odors objectionable) -r (sum of frac-
tions of all participants who considered odors objectionable)
N3 = normalized odor control response
= (sum of fractions of category which wanted odor reduction) -=- (sum of fractions of all
participants who wanted odor reduction)
The normalized responses are a way of combining the responses of each demographic group to all the odors
presented, and thereby working with a larger sample. Values of "N" over 1.00 indicate a higher-than-
average response for the demographic group, and values below 1.00 indicate a lower-than-average response.
All these calculations are based only on the groups who perceived an odor.
As an example, the normalized responses of males and females will be computed using the top two
lines of data from Table 13, the last column from Table 9, and the last two lines from Table 10. From Table 9,
the sum of average cartoon numbers chosen by all participants is 2.63 + 2.87 + 3.08 + 3.37 + 3.70 = 15.65.
From Table 13, the sum of average cartoon numbers for males is 2.46 + 2.78 + 3.05 + 3.44+ 3.54= 15.27,and
the sum of average cartoon numbers for females is 2.76 + 2.95 + 3.11 + 3.32 + 3.79 = 15.93. Therefore Nj for
males equals 15.27 -r 15.65 = 0.976, and N! for females equals 15.93 -T- 15.65 = 1.018.
29
-------
Table 14. Normalized Responses for Each Category
and Level
Category and Level
Sex: Male
Female
Age: 15-24
25-34
35-44
45-64
65 and up
Education: 0-8 yr
9-1 lyr
12 yr
13-15 yr
16 yr or more
Income: under $4,000
$ 4,000-$ 6,999
$ 7,000-$ 9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15, 000 or more
N,
0.976
1.018
0.978
1.027
1.005
1.005
0.934
0.973
0.951
1.010
1.012
1.000
0.971
0.996
1.008
1.002
0.999
N2
0.990
1.009
0.941
1.034
1.046
1.030
0.874
0.898
0.938
1.040
1.039
0.989
0.925
0.986
1.069
1.017
1.007
N3
0.973
1.024
1.010
1.014
1.004
0.999
0.858
0.922
0.965
1.027
1.029
0.974
0.937
1.001
1.042
1.020
0.994
From Table 10, the sum of fractions of all participants who considered odors objectionable is 0.659 +
0.793 + 0.827 + 0.909 + 0.895 = 4.083, and the sum of fractions of all participants who wanted odor
reduction is 0.785 + 0.856 + 0.909 + 0.941 + 0.935 =
4.426. From Table 13, the sum of fractions who con-
sidered odors objectionable for males is 0.602 +
0.743 + 0.845 + 0.956 + 0.895 = 4.041, and the sum
of fractions who wanted odor reduction for males is
0.747 + 0.799 + 0.906 + 0.930 + 0.925 = 4.307. As a
result, N2 for males equals 4.041 4- 4.083 = 0.990,
and N3 for males equals 4.307 * 4.426 = 0.973.
Similar calculations for females yield N2 = 1.009 and
N3 =1.024.
Table 14 summarizes the normalized responses
for each level of the categories sex, age, education,
and income, and Figures 28a through 28d present
these data graphically. The effect of sex is qualita-
tively the same for both the 1969 and 1970 surveys,
and the effects of age are also very similar. The
effects of education and income for the 1970 survey
are similar to those for the 1969 survey from the
bottom through about the middle of each category,
but the 1970 results show a drop-off in response for
the upper income and education categories in con-
trast to the climb shown by the 1969 results. The
possible explanations of this result are a change in
attitudes among the more affluent, better educated
classes, or a change in attitudes among the middle-income group. If the former is the case, it is probably due
to a sobering effect among better educated people who have begun to appreciate the costs involved in air
quality improvement. If the latter is the case, it is probably because the commitment to improve the
environment is filtering down through the ranks to the less affluent and less educated.
D. Additional Data Analysis
Based on preliminary Sniffmobile data, Dr. Turk wrote a linear equation correlating cartoon scale
responses with the "D" or diesel composite rating of the odor presented.*^) More accurate data are
available now, and applying the method of least squares^6) to data presented in Tables 1 and 9, the
equation which results is
cartoon number = 2.03 + 0.280 X ("D" rating of odor)
Whether or not this equation adequately represents the relationship between objectionability and diesel
odor intensity in general is not known, but it does fit the data taken in this study rather well. It should be
noted, however, that, while the estimated cartoon numbers are very close to the observed ones, the
observed relationship tends to be slighty concave upward rather than completely linear. Table 15 gives a
summary of the curve-fit data, and Figure 29 shows both observed and estimated (from the improved linear
correlation equation above) relationships between cartoon numbers and diesel composite intensity numbers.
Dr. Turk's comments also included a suggestion that the numbers associated with the cartoons be
changed from the present 1 through 5 to a -1, 1, +1, +2, +3 sequence to represent more realistically the
Hedonic scale/4) The new numbering system would assign a value of zero to the "neutral" cartoon, which
is consistent with recent thought in Hedonic scaling. The new system would make the relationship between
odor "D" intensity and cartoon-scale rating (almost) directly proportional, as shown by the revised linear
correlation equation
cartoon number = 0.03 + 0.280 ("D") =t 0.280 ("D")
30
-------
1.1
< cc
I 1.0
Average Response
Odor Reduction (N3)
Cartoon Rating (N,)
(N2)
|,
DC
0.9
0.8"-
1.11-
Male
Female
Sex
Figure 28a. Effect of Sex on Odor Responses
| |
< cc
<
o
0.9
Cartoon Rating (N,)
Objectionability (N2)
Odor Reduction (N3)
0.8 L
15-24
25-34
35-44
Age, years
45-64
65 or over
Figure 28b. Effect of Age on Odor Responses
31
-------
1.1,-
1.0
0.9
Cartoon Rating (N,)
Objectionabitity (N2)
Odor Reduction (N3)
0.8
I
0-8 yr
Some
High School
Completed
High School
Some
College
Completed 4 yr
College
Education
Figure 28c. Effect of Education on Odor Responses
1.1
1.0
a
8
EC
Objectionability (N2)
Cartoon Rating (N,)
'Odor Reduction (N3)
0.9-
0.3-
l
Under
$4.000
$4.000-
$6,999
$7.000
$9.999
Income
$10,000-
$14,999
$15,000
or more
Figure 28d. Effect of Income on Odor Responses
32
-------
Table 15. Observed and Estimated Average Cartoon Responses
Actual Odor
"D" Intensity
2.00
3.16
3.82
4.90
5.82
Observed Average
Cartoon Rating
2.63
2.87
3.08
3.37
3.70
Estimated
Cartoon Rating
2.59
2.91
3.10
3'.40
3.66
(Error)2 = e2
0.0016
0.0016
0.0004
0.0009
0.0016
Ee2= 0.0061
Direction of
Error of Estimate
low
high
high
high
low
0)
JO
E
O
o
4-*
<3
Estimated by Linear Correlation Equation
Observed
3 4
Odor Panel "D" Rating
Figure 29. Comparison of Observed and Estimated Cartoon-Numbers
33
-------
The suggested change, although an excellent one, has not been adopted throughout this report because it
might confuse readers who refer to the report on the 1969 survey to have to cope with different scales. It
should be noted that the conversion, for readers wishing to use the new scale, is simply a matter of
subtracting 2 from the existing cartoon numbers wherever they are found.
Another type of data analysis attempted was "weighting" of the data in such a manner as to correct
for sampling errors. In other words, the idea was to give more weight to individual questionnaires submitted
by members of demographic groups which were under-represented in the sample, and vice versa. The results
of this analysis did not live up to expectations, and so they have been omitted from this report. Each
individual sampled was classified according to sex, age, and education. Since the questionnaire provides 2
levels of the sex variable, 5 levels of the age variable, and 5 levels of the educations variable, the number of
the classifications which resulted was 2 X 5 X 5 = 50. Mrs. Carol Richards of NORC provided a joint
distribution of the United States population (1960 census) giving the fraction of the population which fell
into each sex-age-education classification, and this distribution was used as the standard throughout the
analysis (for data see Appendix A, Table A-2)/3^ The sample surveyed at each test site was restructured by
computer to conform to the standard joint distribution, and the average cartoon-scale odor ratings, the
fraction of the sample finding the odor objectionable, and the fraction of the sample wanting reduction of
the odor were then computed again based on the restructured sample. The fault in this analysis lies in its
application to samples containing relatively small numbers. For/example, the largest sample to which the
analysis was applied was under 450 persons, or an average of less than 9 persons per classification. Since the
sampling was not perfect, several of the classifications were not represented at all in this sample of 450
persons (6, to be exact), 22 classifications contained from 1 to 4 participants, and only 10 classifications
contained 10 or more participants. To make such analysis really effective, 10 persons representing each
classification is probably an acceptable minimum, which would require a sample numbering in the thou-
sands. This requirement is obviously beyond the scope of the current project, and the weighting procedure,
therefore, will not be pursued any further.
34
-------
VII. APPLICATION OF RESULTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH INFORMATION
ON ODOR CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The primary objective of this study has been to provide information relating diesel odor intensity to
public opinion. This information can properly be applied in situations such as determining the effectiveness
of a diesel odor control measure in terms of public opinion when the effectiveness in terms of reducing
diesel odor intensity is already known.
As an example, a reduction of exhaust odor from city buses powered by Detroit Diesel 6V-71E
engines can be effected by substituting improved needle valve (LSN) injectors for the standard crown
valve (S) injectors. This reduction in odor can be illustrated by data in Table 16 and the bar graphs
shown in Figure 30. The data were taken at the beginning and end of a 4-month fleet test, and
apply to one bus which was typical of the group of three. Six operating conditions which are typical of
municipal bus operation were used to characterize exhaust odors (three part-power cruise conditions, a low
idle, an acceleration preceded by an idle, and a deceleration preceded by a cruise). The results of this fleet
test were described in detail in the final report of Part IV of the long-range investigation of diesel
emissions for Environmental Protection Agency^ 7> and have been confirmed by the manufacturer's
own tests.W
Table 16. Comparison of Odor Ratings, Foui-Month Fleet Test
of Improved (LSN) Injectors
Operating
Conditions
20mph
40 hp
30mph
40 hp
40mph
40 hp
Idle
Idle-
Acceleration
Deceleration
Injector
60S
60LSN
Net Change
Us Statistic
60S
60LSN
Net Change
Us Statistic
60S
60LSN
Net Change
Us Statistic
60S
60LSN
Net Change
Us Statistic
60S
60LSN
Net Change
Us Statistic
60S
60LSN
Net Change
Us Statistic
"D"
Composite
Start
5.5
4.8
-0.7
*
4.5
3.5
-1.0
1.5
5.5
3.4
-2.1
0
6.0
5.8
-0.2
*
6.3
5.4
-0.9
1.5
7.4
4.2
-3.2
0
End
5.6
4.0
-1.6
0
5.4
3.2
-2.2
0
5.4
3.1
-2.3
0
5.3
5.3
0
*
6.3
4.8
-1.5
0
7.2
2.7
-4.5
0
"B"
Burnt
Start
1.7
1.5
-0.2
*
1.4
1.2
-0.2
0.5
1.6
1.1
-0.5
0
1.9
1.8
-0.1
*
2.0
1.7
-0.3
*
2.4
1.4
-1.0
0
End
2.0
1.4
-0.6
0
1.8
1.0
-0.8
0
1.8
1.0
-0.8
0
1.7
1.8
+0.1
*
2.1
1.6
-0.5
0
2.2
0.9
-1.3
0
"0"
Oily j
Start
1.3
1.2
-0.1
*
1.1
1.0
-0.1
*
1.4
1.0
-0.4
0
1.4
1.3
-0.1
*
1.8
1.2
-0.6
2
1.9
1.1
-0.8
0
End
1.7
1.0
-0.7
0
1.6
0.8
-0.8
0
1.3
0.9
-0.4
0
1.3
1.2
-0.1
*
1.8
1.2
-0.6
0.5
1.6
0.7
-0.9
0
"A"
Aromatic
Start
1.1
1.1
*
1.2
1.0
-0.2
*
1.2
1.0
-0.2
*
1.4
1.4
.-
1.2
1.2
*
1.5
1.3
-0.2
0.5
End
1.1
0.9
-0.2
2
1.0
0.8
-0.2
1
1.0
0.7
-0.3
0
1.3
1.1
-0.2
*
1.1
1.1
0
*
1.5
0.9
-0.6
0
"P"
Pungent
Start
1.0
0.9
-0.1
*
0.9
0.6
-0.3
0
1.0
0.6
-0.4
0
1.1
1.0
-0.1
*
1.2
0.8
-0.4
0.5
1.6
0.6
-1.0
0
End
0.8
0.6
-0.2
*
0.9
0.4
-0.5
0
1.0
0.4
-0.6
0
0.9
0.9
0
*
1.1
0.6
-0.5
0
1.7
0.4
-1.3
0
*US statistic greater than 2-no statistical difference apparent.
35
-------
12
10
I 6
Used
«—I 60S Injectors
I I Set to 1.460
New LSN
Injectors
Set to 1.460
(0 Miles)
LSN Injectors After
4 Months Operation
(17,150 Miles)
Start
Start
Start
End
Start
End
Start
Start End
End
End
11
End
20mph
40 hp
30mph
40 hp
40mph
40 hp
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Deceleration
Figure 30. Comparison of Odor Ratings from a City Bus, 4-Month
Fleet Test of Improved (LSN) Injectors
The Table 16 data include odor intensities and qualities in terms of the "D", "B", "0", "A", and "P"
reference standards of the PHS Quality-Intensity kit, the net change between "S" and "LSN" injectors, and
the Us statistic. This latter quantity is computed by a nonparametric rank analysis, and the value zero
indicates the highest significant differences between sets of injectors while values greater than two indicate
no significant statistical difference between results with the "S" and with the "LSN" injectors. Figure 30
shows the same data in a slightly different form. The white (taller) bars represent the sum of odor ratings
for the "S" injectors (D+B+0+A+P), and the cross-hatched bars overlaid on the white bars represent the
"LSN" injectors. The results at the beginning and the end of the 4-month test are fairly consistent, but in
all cases the odor ratings with "LSN" injectors were somewhat lower after 4 months' operation in normal
city bus service. Marked reductions in odor levels with the improved injectors were observed in all cases
except idle, a very common condition in city bus operation, where only a minor odor reduction was noted.
Summarizing these data, an average reduction in odor intensity of 1.7 "D" numbers, from 5.9 to 4.2,
was realized by the injector change, and corresponding reductions of the quality ratings also occurred. This
change is numerically quite significant (a reduction of approximately 29 percent in "D" numbers), and
replacement of injectors involves a nominal charge for either new or modified exchange injectors and is
normally about a two-man, 3-hour job. At this point, we have the reduction odor intensity, and we can use
the results of the Sniffmobile study to determine the effectiveness of the control measure in terms of public
opinion. Referring to Figure 27, about 90 percent of the 1970 Sniffmobile participants would have found a
"D-5.9" intensity objectionable, and about 85 percent would have found a "D-4.2" intensity objectionable,
according to answers to the direct objectionability question. Simply put, the objectionability of the odor
was reduced by only about 5 percent. Using the other four curves in Figure 27, the reductions calculated
are 21 percent for the 1969 odor reduction question, 15 percent for the 1969 cartoons overall, 16 percent
for the 1969 cartoons in San Antonio, and 19 percent for the 1970 cartoons. This change in public
objectionability, no matter which percentage is considered most reliable, is not very significant compared to
the odor reduction itself. A much greater impact would be realized by a similar numerical intensity
reduction if the baseline had been at, say, "D-4" rather than at "D-5.9". For example, a reduction from
36
-------
"D-4" to "D-2", which is a low intensity, would result in a 30- to 45-percent reduction in public objection-
ability, depending on which curve in Figure 27 is used. A reduction of this magnitude would be even more
significant, and would likely result in many fewer complaints about diesel exhaust odor.
In summary of this section, then, odor reductions achieved by known control methods may or may
not have a significant impact on objectionability of or complaints about the odor. The extent to which a
given reduction will reduce the "complaint-potential" of the odor depends on the baseline odor level before
the reduction is made. This result is not too surprising, but, for the first time, a quantitative appraisal can
be made of control technology in terms of public acceptance.
37
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Springer, Karl J., and Hare, Charles T., "A Field Survey to Determine Public Opinion of Diesel Engine
Exhaust Odor," Final Report to the National Air Pollution Control Administration on Contract No.
PH 22-68-36, February 1970.
2. Correspondence from National Opinion Research Center to Charles T. Hare, dated April 22, 1970
(included as part of Appendix A).
3. Correspondence from National Opinion Research Center to Charles T. Hare, dated September 12,
1970 (included as Tables A-l and A-2 of Appendix A).
4. Turk, Amos, "Comments on SwRI Quarterly Progress Report No. 3 on 'Study of Public Response to
Diesel Engine Exhaust Odors,' " February 15,1971 (included as part of Appendix A).
5. Correspondence from National Opinion Research Center to Charles T. Hare, dated December 16,
1970 (included as part of Appendix A).
6. Pirie, Alexander A., "Linear Regression Analysis," topic in Statistics for the Engineer, S.A.E. publica-
tion No. SP-250, December 1963.
7. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle Odor and Smoke - Part IV," Final
Report to the Environmental Protection Agency on Contract PH-22-68-23, April 1971.
8. Ford, H.S., Merrion, D.F., and Hames, R.J., "Reducing Hydrocarbons and Odor in Diesel Exhaust by
Fuel Injector Design," SAE Paper No. 700734, presented at Combined National Farm, Construction,
and Industrial Machinery and Powerplant Meetings, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, September 14-17, 1970.
38
-------
APPENDIX A
INPUT FROM CONSULTANTS:
NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER;
DR. AMOS TURK
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l. U.S. PERCENT DISTRIBUTIONS (1968 CURRENT
POPULATION SURVEY)
Sex:
Male 15+
Female 15+
Age:
14-24
25-34
35-44
45-64
65+
48.5
51.5
25.1
16.4
16.6
28.5
13.3
Years of School Completed
(Persons 14 yr and over):
<8yr
9-1 lyr
12 yr
13-15 yr
16+ yr
*• •>•* j *
27.9
22.1
30.7
10.6
8.7
Age by Sex:
Male:
14-24
25-34
35.44
45-64
65+
Female:
14-24
25-34
35-44
45-64
65+
Income (Family)— 1967:
< $4,000
$ 4,000-$6,999
$ 7,000-$9,999
$10,000-$ 14,999
$15, 000 and over
25.4
16.8
17.0
28.7
12.0
24.8
16.0
16.3
28.3
14.6
18.8
22.6
24.3
22.4
12.0
Received in communication from NORC on September 12, 1970.
A-2
-------
TABLE A-2. U.S. PERCENT DISTRIBUTIONS (1960 CENSUS)
Sex:
\ M 1 1 C i
Male 15+
Female 1 5+
Age:
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-64
65+
48.5
51.5
19.5
18.5
19.5
29.4
13.1
Years of School Completed
(Persons 14 yr and over):
<8yr
9-1 lyr
12 yr
13-1 Syr
16+ yr
36.7
23.4
24.5
8.8
6.5
Age by Sex:
Male:
15-24
25-34
***J «JT^
3544
45-64
65+
Female:
15-24
25-34
3544
45-64
65+
Income (Family):
< $4,000
$ 4,000-$6,999
$ 7,000-$9,999
$10,000-514,999
$15, 000 and over
20.0
18 ft
J. O.U
19.6
29.6
12.2
19.0
18.3
19.4
29.3
14.0
42.0
29.8
16.2
8.4
3.7
Years of School Completed
by Age:
14-24 yr
24-34 yr
35-44 yr
45-64 yr
65+ yr
Years of School Completed
by Age and Sex:
Male:
14-24 yr
25-34 yr
35-44 yr
45-64 yr
65+ yr
Female:
14-24 yr
25-34 yr
35-44 yr
45-64 yr
65+ yr
Years
<8
5.4
3.5
5.1
13.8
8.9
9-11
8.2
4.0
4.1
5.5
1.5
12
5.2
6.5
6.3
5.3
1.3
13-15
1.9
2.0
1.8
2.3
0.7
16+
0.5
2.0
1.7
1.9
0.5
6.2
3.8
5.5
14.6
8.6
4.6
3.2
4.7
13.0
9.2
8.3
4.0
4.1
5.3
1.2
8.1
4.0
4.1
5.7
1.8
4.7
5.5
5.5
4.6
0.9
5.7
7.5
7.4
6.0
1.7
2.1
2.1
1.9
2.1
0.6
1.7
1.9
1.7
2.5
0.8
0.6
2.6
2.2
2.2
0.5
0.4
1.4
1.2
1.6
0.5
Received in communication from NORC on September 12, 1970.
A-3
-------
Letter of April 22,1970 from Paul Sheatsley
to Charles T. Hare
Thanks for your April 10 letter with attached revision of the Sniffmobile questionnaire. We think your
changes are all to the good and we offer you only the following comments.
The revised codes for age may indeed be helpful in reducing the tendency of some people to understate
their years. We hold no particular brief for the state-of-health question, since it did not seem useful in the
previous analysis. The change on education is also good.
To make income breaks more comparable with Census and other data, we would recommend changing the
last three categories to 7,000-9,999, 10,000-14,999, and 15,000 or more. The last category in 1967
accounted for 12.2% of families, nation-wide.
We agree with the deletion of the smoking queston and we like your suggestion to replace the code numbers
with boxes to be checked. The numbers now serve no functional purpose and possibly confuse respondents.
We like Q. 1 on the back of the questionnaire, especially since you intend to include a zero intensity in
some of your tests. We do feel there should be some instructions after this question: for example, IF YES,
PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS 2, 3, and 4. IF NO, THAT IS ALL WE WANT TO KNOW. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. But perhaps you will want to try it out as it stands. With this question included, it will be
important, as you say, for the "Spiel" to make the point that a "No" answer is perfectly acceptable and
normal.
It occurs to us that if you expose people to very faint odors or to zero odors, they may not recognize the
smell even though they detect some kind of vague odor. Perhaps a "Don't know" or "Not sure" box will be
needed in Q. 2.
We like the new Q. 3, though I personally feel that it makes Q. 4 rather redundant, especially if the
respondent has just said he would not find the odor objectionable. If he answers Yes to 3,1 would expect
that in the great majority of cases he would answer Yes to 4. However, this again may be worth testing.
Ben took exception to and I was a little puzzled by your statement that "since we are not planning to use
any rigorous techniques or defend same on theoretical grounds, it makes little difference^ whether our
sampling is with or without replacement." He notes that, while there are inherent qualifications which must
be attached to our sampling method, it should nevertheless be as rigorous as possible since you will use it to
generate statistical data which will be treated mathematically. I am sure you are in agreement.
We also feel that effort should be made to keep out "repeaters", either through recognition or by asking
each person or group, "Have you ever taken part in this survey before?" If the van is parked at the same
downtown location, it is inevitable that some "regulars" who are curious or who have nothing else to do
will volunteer repeatedly (if only to collect ball-point pens!) and this just could distort the data somehow.
We grant that some few people are bound to take the test more than once, but the project will be easier to
defend if we can say that we tried to prevent this.
That sums up our reactions to your changes. We hope they are useful to you and that you will feel free to
call us about any future problems or questions.
A-4
-------
Letter of 12/16/70 from Paul Sheatsley
to Charles T. Hare
Ben King and I have studied your December 1 progress report and have the following observations.
This year's cartoon rating scores from San Antonio are, in the case of odors D-4 and D-6, considerably
lower than the scores assigned to those same odors in San Antonio (and elsewhere) last year. The most
likely explanation is that the 1969 method of administering the odors in sequence to the same respondents
resulted in increased sensitivity to the odor as the test progressed, and thus in higher scores in the higher D
levels. It was this possibility which presumably led to the change in design this year to one odor level per
respondent, and the results appear to support the hypothesis.
For D-2 the 1970 rating score is considerably higher than that obtained in San Antonio (or anywhere else
except Los Angeles) last year. The explanation of this finding is not readily apparent, though it may relate
to site selection. D-2 seems to have been tested at Lackland Plaza where the population is described as
middle class Caucasian. It appears that this population includes a larger proportion of persons with college
education, which we found last year correlates with dislike of the odor. When you weight this sample in
accordance with overall population characteristics, the difference may then be reduced or even disappear.
Perhaps the most striking finding is that the cartoon scores continue to be related to the D levels in a linear
manner with positive slope, even when they are presented singly rather than in progression. The data thus
confirm the major finding of last year that people distinguish among the levels and find the odor more
unpleasant as the level increases.
The most serious problem in the 1970 data is the difficulty in interpreting the response to the questions,
"Is this odor objectionable?" and "Should this odor be reduced?" Again, with one minor objection, the
proportion of persons who say the odor is objectionable and should be reduced increases in a linear manner
with each increase in D level. However, the proportions who respond in this manner seem unnaturally high.
Thus, one-third of those exposed to the 0 level found it objectionable and 40% wanted it reduced; among
those who said they smelled this odor, the majority gave those answers. You have stated that there was a
dusty residual odor in this test which might have produced these responses. At the D-2 level, about 58%
found it objectionable and 69% want it reduced; among those who smelled it, the respective percentages
were 65 and 78.
These questions were not asked in last year's study, where the most closely related question was "Are any
of these odors so bad that someone should take steps to reduce them? IF YES, Which ones?" In San
Antonio in 1969 only 23% of the respondents said the D-2 (Test 1) odor was that bad. True, this response
was offered after the respondents had been exposed to the higher levels, thus making it seem less unpleasant
by comparison. But this can hardly account for the difference between 23% last year who said it was so bad
that someone should take steps to reduce it, and the 68% this year who said it should be reduced.
In our view, the two questions asked this year must be interpreted extremely carefully. The responses at the
0 level are indicative. Here, 176 persons said they did not smell anything but 178 said the odor should be
reduced. A cross-tab of these items might be more revealing.
It would seem that the two questions in the present study are tapping a much broader domain of opinion
than the respondent's actual experience in the Sniffmobile. While people seem to be rating the particular
odor they have just been exposed to when they mark their cartoon ratings, the intrusion of questions about
odor reduction and objectionability may shift their consideration to broader questions of environmental
pollution.
Both questions tell the person he has been exposed to an odor, even if he failed to perceive it. The first asks if it
is objectionable, and in these days of publicity about pollution, it is perhaps natural for many people to say
A-5
-------
that any odor, unless obviously pleasant, is objectionable. It is interesting that more people say the odor
should be reduced than find it objectionable; this is true at every D level. A cross-tab of these two items
might be interesting, as well.
Why would people want to reduce an odor they do not find objectionable and, in some cases, cannot even
detect? It seems that the question "should this odor be reduced?" is pretty hard to say No to. It may well
be true that public opinion is more anti-odor this year than last year, but we feel that last year's question
was a better one. "Is the odor so bad that someone should take steps to reduce it?" suggests that the odor is
not just mildly unpleasant but is really so bad that someone, presumably at a certain effort or cost, should
take actions against it. Even if administered after a single test of one D level, we believe this question would
produce fewer Yes answers than the question, "Should this odor be reduced?"
Please let us know if we can provide any further advice or help.
A-6
-------
Letter from Amos Turk to Karl Springer
February 15, 1971
Comments on
Southwest Research Institute
Quarterly Progress Report No. 3 for the period
August 16-November 15, 1970, National Air
Pollution Control Administration Contract No.
CPA 70-44, "Study of Public Response to
Diesel Engine Exhaust Odors."
This study has obviously been well conceived and executed, and provides reasonable measures of how
intense a diesel exhaust odor must be to elicit certain responses with regard to recognition, objectionability,
and suggestions for control action.
What is particularly interesting is the data summarized in Figure 7, which relates diesel odor intensity
as measured by the nominal D-rating) to the objectionability as indicated on the cartoon scale. The most
obvious feature is the linearity of the graph. If we arbitrarily connect the points for D-2 and D-6 by a
straight line, the equation for that line would be
Cartoon response = 2.1+ 0.27 D
and the other points would fit closely, as shown below:
D rating
of odor
0
2
3
4
5
6
Objectionability
(Cartoon response)
Calc.
2.1
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.5
3.7
Obs.
2.3
2.6
2.9
3.1
3.4
3.7
(fixed)
(fixed)
A linear response of this sort is in contrast with the notion that judges will tend to bias their scores
toward the center of a scale. If this were true, the cartoon responses at both high and low D-values would
curve toward the center of the cartoon scale, and the relationship would not be linear.
However, on first consideration it may seem strange that the relationship between objectionability
and intensity (D-value) is not a direct proportionality, that is, when the intensity is zero the objection-
ability has a positive value. In the first place, in reporting these results, I believe that it is confusing to
number the cartoon scale from 1 to 5. It would be much better to use the range of —1 to 3, as follows:
Cartoon
pleasant
neutral
unpleasant
very unpleasant
unbearable
Objectionability number
-1
0
1
2
3
This scale maintains the linearity that SwRI has shown the cartoon sequence adheres to, and sets
values of zero for "neutral." The latter assignment is consistent with most of the recent thought in hedonic
A-7
-------
scaling (for example "Hedonic Appraisals of Environmental Odors" by James W. Johnston, Jr. and Eugene
P. Rubacky) Chapter in preparation for the volume on "Human Response to Environmental Odors,
Volume 4 of "Advances in Chemoreception").
Of course, with such a scale, the relationship between objectionability and intensity becomes directly
proportional:
Objectionability = 0.27 D
D Rating
of Odor
0
2
3
4
5
6
Objectionability
(Cartoon responses)
Calc.
0
0.54
0.81
1.1
1.4
1.6
Obs.
0.3
0.63
0.87
1.1
1.4
1.7
With regard to the nominal D-zero level, however, the fact that most people answered "yes" to the
question "Did you smell anything?" is noteworthy. Such an answer cannot be understood in terms of the
classical assumption of psychophysics that the sensory system (man's olfaction in this case) has a fixed
cutoff or an absolute threshold for stimulation that would elicit a positive response. This theory of a fixed
cutoff is now losing support. (T. Engen, "Man s Ability to Perceive Odors" Chapter 12 in ADVANCES IN
CHEMORECEPTION, Volume 1, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1970). In its place a detection
theory based on a decision analysis model of psychophysical threshold has been proposed by Green and
Swets (Green, D.M. and Swets, J.A., Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York, Wiley, 1966).
In essence, detection theory proposes that there is no fixed cutoff of perception and therefore no stimulus
or sensory threshold at all. In its place, the problem of detecting a stimulus may be considered as a problem
of signal-to-noise ratio. Whenever an experiment presents a stimulus there will also be some noise because of
external uncontrollable events, variability in the stimulus, or spontaneous internal events, such as random
actions of the nerve cells. It is assumed that such noise has an effect on the sensory system of the same
general quality as the stimulus itself, and that there is therefore no fixed criterion that the observer can
apply to his sensation to be able to make a sharp difference between "Yes, I smelled something" versus
"No, I did not smell anything." Instead of considering the task as one of categorizing experiences into two
classes (detection and lack of detection), the detection theory considers it to be analogous to statistical
sampling and deciding whether the response was caused by a particular stimulus or by noise. In other
words, there is always a sensory event. The question is therefore not whether the sensory event occurred
but whether the sensory event was produced by the stimulus or by the noise. The response of the observer
therefore depends on his conception of the situation, that is, on the criterion by which he decides whether
he smelled something or not.
Engen has shown that the criterion by which a person decides whether or not an odor is present can
be manipulated over wide ranges by such small rewards and punishments as the gain or loss of a few cents.
The situation can be visualized as a payoff matrix with four possibilies.
ISA
DIESEL ODOR
PRESENTED?
YES
NO
RESPONSE
YES
correct
false alarm
NO
miss
correct
A-8
-------
The situation in the "Sniffmobile" test engenders a large expectation that an odor will be present.
This factor shifts the decision criterion in the direction of a lower level of stimulation (such as could be
produced by random "noise" with no diesel odor present) and a high rate of "false alarm" responses. This
result is certainly understandable in terms of detection theory. Also, the hypothesis that the "yes" response
to the D-0 stimulus is an expectation phenomenon is supported by the data that show that this odor was
experienced less frequently than any of the other levels.
The important point of this aspect of the study is that the cartoon responses averaged close to
"neutral" (or zero on the proposed -1 to +3 scale). I believe that this result contributes to the validation of
the SwRI study because it means that the typical respondant says, in effect, "All of this elaborate setup
must mean that there is really some sort of odor here, and I suppose if this is so that something should be
done about it, but I don't actually know what kind of a sensation this is, and it really leaves me neutral."
The recognition of such phenomena is not new. An interesting demonstration was described in 1899
(E.E. Slosson, Psychological Review, Volume 6, Page 407,1899).
I had prepared a bottle filled with distilled water in cotton and packed in a box. After some
other experiments I stated that I wished to see how rapidly an odor would be diffused through
the air and requested that as soon as anyone perceived the odor he should raise his hand, I then
unpacked the bottle in the front of the hall, poured the water over the cotton, holding my head
away during the operation and started a stopwatch. While awaiting results I explained that I was
quite sure that no one in the audience had ever smelled the chemical compound which I had
poured out, and expressed the hope that, while they might find the odor strong and peculiar, it
would not be too disagreeable to anyone. In fifteen seconds most of those in the front row had
raised their hands, and in forty seconds the "odor" had spread to the back of the hall, keeping a
pretty regular "wave front" as it passed on. About three-fourths of the audience claimed to
perceive the smell.. .More would probably have succumbed to the suggestion, but at the end of
a minute I was obliged to stop the experiment for some of the front seats were being unpleas-
antly affected and were about to leave the room..."
A-9
-------
Letter from Amos Turk to Charles Hare and Karl Springer
March 14, 1971
Comments on SwRI Report on NAPCA Contract
No. CPA 70-44, "Study of Public Responses
to Diesel Engine Exhaust Odors."
Question 1: Letter from C.T.H., 3/4/71, top of page 2, ". . . was the noise effect constant . . .?"
Comment: The noise effect consists of signals other than diesel exhaust that could be interpreted as odor.
These signals include random neutral firings not related to any odorant, vapors in the nasal area emanating
from the body itself or its associated microorganisms, and nondiesel vapor that might have passed through
the purification system or been introduced later (as by desorption) and that appears in the air stream
presented to the judges. None of these is apt to change significantly when diesel odor is introduced.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to consider the noise as simply being added to the system.
Noise" -f
Notse s*
Question 2: (same letter, Fig. X) "Can D-zero values be subtracted from curves B and C?"
Comment: The objectionability is a roughly linear function of the D-rating over the range from D-0 to D-6
(Progress Report 3, Fig. 7). Mathematically, it would therefore appear to be correct to assume that the
objectionability at, say, D-4, is the sum of two components, which are the objectionability due to noise and
that due to diesel exhaust. The objectionability due to the diesel exhaust alone would then be the dif-
ference between the D-4 value and the D-0 value. Since the fraction of participants who wanted the odor
reduced is also approximately linear in the range D-0 to D-4 (Figure X) we could say that in this range the
subtraction would be valid. However, the problem is that there is no such thing as exposure to diesel
exhaust alone without noise, and such a subtraction, even if mathematically valid, would not correspond to
any reality. In fact, the odor "noise" on the street or highway might well be greater. Therefore, I consider
the subtraction to be unwarranted.
Question 3: Can we treat the near-zero data as a separate case?
Comment: I would find no objection to such a separation. There are two justifications for this recom-
mendation. One is the conceptual distinction between the pure "noise" distribution and the actual distribu-
tion of combined signal + noise as shown on the previous page. The second is the graph accompanying your
letter of March 4 showing D-score versus fraction of participants who perceived odor. (The left part of this
curve is cut off in your final report.) The nominal D-0 score was 52% for "occasionally," and much lower
for the "oftens" or "never." "Occasionally" is a non-committal answer, especially at low intensity levels,
and far different from "often" or "never" which are both much more definite. This implies a real quality
difference between D-0 and, say, D-2, where "occasionally" and the "oftens" converge.
Question 4: What is the significance of the answers to questions 3 and 4 of the questionnaire, as discussed
in your final report?
A-10
-------
Comment: There is an alternate interpretation other than "I don't find the odor objectionable myself, but
perhaps others would ..." The participants may have been saying, "I don't find the odor objectionable, but
it may be harmful, or associated with something harmful, so it had better be reduced." It is interesting that
this phenomenon ("no" to Question 3 and "yes" to Question 4) is most marked at the lowest real D-level,
D-2. This fact reinforces the idea that there is a component of expectation in the responses to low levels of
diesel exhaust. This Question 34 "inversion" is also very marked, of course, when there is no diesel odor at
all, as shown by the D-0 data.
A-ll
-------
APPENDIX B
DIRECTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS
B-l
-------
We thank you very much for coming in. This survey is to find out your opinion of a common odor,
typical of cities in the United States, and it is being conducted by Southwest Research Institute for the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
During the few minutes you will spend here, you will be asked to take a sniff of one odor sample. The
odor has no health hazard, and your participation must be completely voluntary. I want to make clear that
this is a common odor, and that it is not dangerous, but if any of you have reservations about sniffing it, I
would appreciate your telling me so now.
I will hand each of you a questionnaire in just a moment which should be filled out before the odor
testing begins. For each question, check the box beside the answer which fits you best. All the information
you give will be kept confidential, and you will not be identified. We do not want your name on the
questionnaire. Use the ball point pen which has been provided to fill out the sheet, and if you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to ask them, (pass out questionnaires) On question number 4, check
"employed" only if you work 35 hours per week or more. On question number 6, check the total income
of the household where you live, not just your personal income, (allow time to complete questions, check
over answers).
If you have not already done so, please turn the questionnaire over now, and we will examine the
other side. In a few minutes an odor will be presented through the cone in each booth. In order for you to
evaluate the odor properly, it is important that you rotate the hood out of the way (demonstrate), put your
nose well down into the cone when you sniff (demonstrate), and then return the hood to its original
position (demonstrate). There is no odor in the cone now, so practice it once to see how it works (observe
and coach where necessary).
Very good. Now, when the odor sample is ready for you to evaluate, I'll tell you so. Please take just
one or two sniffs, and answer question 1 immediately. Some of you may not be able to smell this odor, so
if you don't smell anything, please answer "no" to question 1 and stop there. If you do smell somthing,
answer "yes" to question 1 and then check the box under the cartoon character which best expresses your
feeling about the odor. Each cartoon character is reacting to an odor he is experiencing, and we want you
to check only one box. If you answered "yes" to question 1 and checked a box under one of the cartoons,
please answer questions 2, 3, and 4. Are there any questions?
I will start the odor system now, but please do not sniff until I tell you to. It will be about a minute
before the odor is ready (go to condition).
(When system has stabilized-about 30 sec.) Please take a sniff of the odor in the cone at this time
and record your opinion as I explained earlier (keep odor on for about 30 seconds).
(When everybody seems to be about finished.) Thank you very much for helping us with our survey.
Please keep the ball point pen you have been using as a souvenir.
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
CALIBRATION DATA
C-l
-------
CALIBRATION DATA
"D"
"B"
"O"
"A"
«P"
Site 01 (9/22)
4.00
1.11
0.89
0.89
0.89
3.9
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.7
4.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
3.5
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.6
3.5
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
3.8
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.7
3.7
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
3.8
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.6
"D"
"B"
"O"
"A"
«P»
Site 01 (9/30)
3.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
4.1
1.5
1.1
0.8
0.8
3.5
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.5
4.2
1.3
1.1
0.9
1.0
"D"
"B"
"0"
"A"
"P"
Site 02 (10/5)
5.33
1.89
1.44
0.89
1.00
5.00
1.78
1.11
1.00
1.11
4.89
1.78
1.11
1.00
1.00
4.78
1.56
1.22
1.00
1.00
4.89
1.78
1.22
1.00
1.00
4.11
1.11
1.11
1.00
0.89
5.44
1.89
1.56
1.00
1.00
4.89
1. 44
1.11
1.00
1.00
"D"
"B"
"O"
"A"
«P"
Site 02 (10/15)
4.5
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
5.4
1.7
1.4
0.9
1.1
4.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.9
5.1
1.7
1.2
1.0
1.2
"D"
"B"
"O"
"A"
"P"
Site 03 (10/20)
5.33
1.89
1.11
1.22
1.00
5.00
1.67
1.11
1.00
1.00
5.9
2.0
1.5
1.2
1.0
5.6
1.9
1.4
1.1
1.0
5.8
1.9
1.4
1.0
1.2
5.8
1.9
1.5
1.2
1.1
6.0
1.9
1.6
1.1
1.1
"D"
"B"
"0"
"A"
»
Site 03 (10/26)
6.2
2.0
1.4
1.1
1.1
5.9
2.0
1.5
1.2
1.0
6.1
1.9
1.6
1.1
1.1
6.3
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.1
"D"
"B"
"0"
"A"
"P"
Site 04 (10/27)
2.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.2
2.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.1
3.1
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.4
3.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
3.5
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.4
3.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.3
3.2
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.4
2.8
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.4
C-2
-------
"D"
"B"
"0"
"A"
"P"
"D"
"B"
"0"
"A"
«P'»
"D"
"B"
"O"
"A"
-------
APPENDIX D
FIELD STUDY DATA
D-l
-------
The coding system used on these data is as follows:
Columns
land 2
3, 4, and 5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
Value
01 to 06
001 to 999
lor 2
Ito5
ItoS
Ito5
1 to 4
1 to 5
lor 2
ItoS
Ito4
1 to 3
lor 2
lor 2
Interpretation
test site number
questionnaire number
male or female
1st to 5th age level
1st to 5th education level
1st to 5th activity level
1st to 4th employment level
1st to 5th income level
did or did not perceive odor
odor rating in terms of
cartoon number
1st to 4th level of experience
of odor
location of odor; indoors,
outdoors, or both
odor was or was not
objectionable
odor should or should not
be reduced
conditions: column 15 blank if column 12 not 1
column 21-29 blank if column 19 not 1
column 25 blank if column 23 is 4
D-2
-------
8
i
2
\
2
01005 2
01006
01007
W JU W V '
0100B
01009
0101C
01011
01012
01013
01014
m cii <5
U J. U 3. v
01016
01017
01018
01019
01020
D1021
01022
n< n-5"l
Uluc J
01S24
01025
01026
01027
01028
Q1029
0103G
01031
01032
01033
01034
01035
01036
01037
01036
01D39
0104C
01041
01042
01043
01044
01045
01046
01047
01048
01049
01050
01051
01052
01053
01054
1
<
JL
i
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
i
i
i
l
i
i
i
i
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
S
<
2
4
1
4
5
B
2
2
1
2
a
i
i
4
3
2
3
4
4
4
2
3
2
3
5
2
3
4
1
2
1
1
4
3
2
4
1
2
%
2
3
1
4
3
1
1
4
4
4
2
1
cation
3
"P
LU
5
3
3
3
1
1
3
2
4
5
9
2
2
4
2
3
3
5
2
1
4
S
5
2
1
4
2
1
3
2
3
S
3
5
4
2
2
2
S
2
4
2
1
9
4
4
3
2
2
3
4
fr
U
<
i
i
i
i
2
9
1"
1
1
5
i
i
5
g
4
*
1
7
1
1
5
1
1
i
l
l
1
1
l
l
4
5
i
i
i
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
5
1
4
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
i
1
|
S
£
UJ
1
4
3
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
4
2
1
4
2
2
4
2
3
4
1
2
4
1
3
2
2
3
3
1
2
»
U
C
3
4
2
3
1
1
•i
j
2
1
4
3
4
1
1
3
2
1
3
5
2
2
4
3
2
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
2
1
3
5
1
3
2
1
4
1
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
C
O
a
K
u
1
l
l
l
i
l
l
i
l
1
i
l
l
l
i
l
l
l
i
i
i
i
i
l
1
i
l
l
i
i
l
i
i
i
l
l
l
l
i
l
1
l
i
l
i
i
i
l
l
l
l
i
f
(0
cc
2
2
4
3
3
3
4
2
3
2
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
5
2
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
3
3
4
1
A
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
3
8
1
V
a
x
UJ
2
1
4
1
1
1
4
f
3
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
3
3
3
4
1
2
3
3
2
3
4
2
3
0.
'2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2.
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
ictionability j
3'~*
2
1
1
1
1
1
?.
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
r Control
5
O
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
5
«
£
stionnaire
iber
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
2
4
4
2
2
3
4
5
2
3
S
3
2
2
3
4
4
1
1
1
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
S
U
I
Q.
X
LU
3
1
2
1
3
1
2
{*
1
2
1
3
4
3
4
4
2
1
2
3
3
1
3
i
4>
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
3
t
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
2
3
3
1
1
1
8
i
a.
1
1
2
2
2
2
9
fc
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
Jn
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
9
c
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
ectionability |
!o
O
1
1
2
1
1
1
j
X<
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
?
f,
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
?
&
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3r Control |
S
O
1
2
2
1
1
1
i
j>
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
D-3
-------
£
|
(DC.
- o S
<" S -i
s S 1
" a z
OHIO
01111
01112
01113
01114
01115
01116
01117
fl 4 4 H Q
J 1 X 1 O
01119
01120
01121
T 4 4 O*3
Oll^S?
01123
01124
01125
01126
01127
01128
01129
D113C
01133.
01132
11 1 V^t
Jil J.3
31134
31135
31136
%*
11156
1157
115ft
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
* a
a <
2 4
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 4
1 4
1 2
1 1
2n
e.
2 i
2 4
1 4
1A
2
2 S
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 4
1 S
i i
2 1
2 3
1A
0
1 E
p S
£ £
2
1 5
1 5
1
1 5
2 4
3 1
3 1
2O
£
3 1
1
3 1
34
1
1
2 1.
1 4
1
1
1
1
4 1
4 1
2 4
4 A
I **
1 4
2
1 4
JL '
1 5
1
1
1
1
4 1
1 2
1 2
3 3
1
4 2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1 5
1 A
3, *f
1 5
3
5 1 .
i 2 :
2 3 '
1 2 :
2 2 '
g 2 :
? j
= 8
-S £
a o> 'C
w £ «
P <5 a.
te *o x
a!
i
•^
8
3
o
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
i
i
i
i
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
i
2
L
t
I
L
2
L
t
L
L
L
L
L :
L
L
L .
L !
L :
•g
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
I
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
9
E.
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
I
t
l
L
i
i
t
L
L
L
I
L
L
2-
£ c £ S
i li . i ii if i Li i
g=!sS>-iseife,s£«;°;s>
i-az
-------
03
w.
C
JB c *-
" '1 |
S 3 1
K a z
0122C
01221
01222
01223
01224
01225
01226
01227
01228
01229
0123C
01231
M * <& *J *L
01232
01233
01234
01235
01236
01237
01236
01239
01240
01241
01242
01243
01244
01245
« 4 iQ A i
Q1236
01247
01248
01249
01850
01251
01252
01253
01254
01255
01256
01257
01258
01259
01260
01261
01262
01263
01264
01265
01266
01267
01268
01269
01270
01271
01272
01273
01274
1
2 S. -g
(0 < LU
142
234
134
123
233
134
244
149
123
214
214
21 4
j. ™
123
1 1 2
124
1 1 3
222
122
214
222
213
214
233
114
213
114
24 *5
1 C
132
125
232
1 4 S
234
214
242
112
114
212
112
113
123
2?3
21-3
233
224
1 1 S
214
214
213
213
132
1 3 5
141
189
142
143
|
ts
<
4
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
k
i
4
1
i
1
1
4
1
1
i
1
l
1
1
1
l
1
1
l
l
l
1
l
l
3
3
3
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
1
1
1
2
1
i
4
1
1
1 . 1
I | te
ill £ a!
1 1
1 1
2 4 1
3 3 1
4 1
331
2 i-i
151
221
1 1
231
29 "1
C i.
3 1
221
321
421
211
1 1
221
221
211
231
131
131
221
421
1*3 4
f. 1
421
251
221
141
241
231
1 1
341
3 2 1
2 1
2 1
3 1
111
241
231
241
241
241
231
2-31
221
211
2 1
131
311
2 1
121
331
.1
(Q
cc
2
5
4
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
4
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
3.
4
%
3
3
2
2
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
3
4
§
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
§
0)
I
o.
X
ai
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
3
2
0
£
1
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
2
4
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
3
2
8
i
a.
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
?
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
S
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
a
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
a
2
2
3
a
&
I
°
§
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
2
1
1
Z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
i
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
>r Control
S
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
>
. 1 g I i 8 1 1
S 11 . 1 1 1 1 tit sl *
SJlSlaS^lalSiss
01275 1415 112* 22
01276 213121141211
01277 213. 121141211
01278 222121141211
01279 133134151211
01280 2524 1132211
01281 1514 12
01282 1514 1123212
01283 2133 1134 11
01284 2143 3121211
01285 125112132211
nd4O44 *<&A
-------
U
5>
s
1-
?
(0
c
c .
O o
£** c
c
3 3
o z
02C01
02002
02003
02004
02005
02006
02007
02008
02009
0201C
02011
02012
02013
02014
02015
02016
02017
fl9fM ft
UfcUlP
02019
02020
02021
02022
02023
02024
02025
02026
02027
132026
D2029
D2030
D2031
32032
32033
32034
32035
32036
32037
32036
32039
32040
32041
32042
32043
32044
32045
320 4 6
32047
32048
32049
32050
12051
J2052
12053
12054
x
w
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
a
<
2
5
4
9
S
4
4
1
2
2
4
3
3
4
1
4
1
2
1
t
a
2
5
5
2
4
3
2
3
2
3
2
1
4
4
S
i
1
2
i
i
A
1
2
1
3
1
1
5
4
^ 2
1 S
2 2
|
•g
LJJ
4
4
5
4
1
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
5
3
2
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
S
4
5
3
5
9
5
5
4
4
2
1
5
9
4
4
4
4
4
S
4
3
>
1
ts
<
1
4
1
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
i
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
i
i
t
2
1
1
c
1
Q.
UJ
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4 3
2 2
2 1
1
U
£
3
2
4
2
1
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
3
1
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
1
i
3
2
4
2
5
3
3
3
1
1
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
5
1
1
4
2 3
2 3
1 4
2 4
2 2
2 4
4 2
5
1
1
3
1
o
'i
s
c
0.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
?
s
cc
3
4
4
3
5
3
2
2
2
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
5
4
*r
2
3
4
4
5
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
5
4
4
2
2
4
3
5
4
3
4
3
5
4
3
4
3
4
2
3
3
c
0>
s
o.
X
UJ
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
•1
J.
2
I
1
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
4
3
1
3
1
1
3
2
1
0.
2
2
Si
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
3
1 2
2
3
2
2
>
i
ection
•s
O
1
1
1
1
2
1
2,
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
e
3
•g
O
i
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 i
1 1
2211
2 2
1 2
2 2
1 1
1
1
1 1
1211
4
1 1
132211
1
4 1
3
3
4
1 1
3211
03
W
|
±
0 U
a £
0) t
3 3
o z
02055
nort R A
UfiOaO
02057
02050
02059
02060
02061
02062
02063
02064
02065
02066
02067
02068
02069
Q2070
02071
02072
02073
02074
02075
02076
02077
02078
n9f°i7a
U £ U / r
02080
02081
02062
02083
02084
02085
020B6
02087
02088
02089
02090
02391
02092
02Q93
02094
02095
02096
Q2097
02098
02099
02100
02101
02102
Q2103
02104
02105
02106
02107
02100
02109
x
%
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
i
i
i
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
f
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
2
4
5
4
2
1
1
1
4
3
2
2
2
i
5
?
?
2
4
4
5
4
2
4
4
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
4
2
3
3
1
2
4
3
3
2
4
5
•C
•o
UJ
5
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
5
5
5
5
3
2
4
4
5
3
4
1
3
4
2
2
4
2
3
2
3
5
2
1
4
3
4
1
4
2
3
5
4
4
4
>
•I
!
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
i
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
1"
1
i
2
2
1
1
4
3
2
1
?
i
2
1
3
2
1
i
i
i
i
2
2
2
4
1
1
j_
2
2
+*
C
>
S
Q.
UJ
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
3
1
1
1
4
1
1
0)
1
c
4
2
4
3
3
1
4
1
2
4
1
3
1
5
2
2
5
2
2
1
2
5
1
2
2
2
5
1
1
1
2
5
3
3
1
4
4
1
4
4
1
1
2
5
5
1
5
4
4
3
4
5
2
c
o
'^
8
§
O.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
l
i
i
i
i
i
l
?
s
cc
3
A
*»
3
4
2
3
4
4
3
4
3
2
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
&
2
i
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
S
C
«
s
o.
x
UJ
2
^
JL
3
1
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
1
3
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
s
2
&
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
a
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
>
i
g
B
3
O
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
g
e
3
I
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
ifc
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D-6
-------
V
in
S
1-
uestionnaire
umber
O Z
02110
02111
02112
02113
02114
02115
0211 ft
v fe J,
1
<
2
2
2
2
1
4
2
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
4
1
4
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
4
4
4
1
4
1
mployment
Ul
2
1
2
3
1
5
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
3
4
1
2
1
3
2
2
3
1
2
icome 1
c.
4
1
2
2
3
3
4
1
1
5
4
2
2
1
S
4
1
3
1
1
2
d.
*T
3
1
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
5
3
2
2
4
1
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
5
1
4
|
I
a.
l
i
i
1
i
1
^
J.
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
i
i
1
i
1
1
i
1
1
O»
C
ra
DC
4
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
4
3
4
5
5
4
9
4
5
f-
2
3
2
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
2
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
5
4
3
xperience 1
UJ
2
1
1
1
2
1
7
c.
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
H
JL
4
4
2
3
3
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
2
1
3
2
1
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
Q.
2
2
2
2
2
2
o
*
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
?
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
?
2
3
2
2
2
1
bjectionability 1
O
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
dor Control
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
i
i
2
1
•>
i
i
i
i
i
s
U>
£
s
ra
c
l|
O Z
02165
02166
02167
02168
02169
02170
H91 71
UiCi / 1
02172
02173
n9« 74
Utl / «t
02175
02176
02177
02178
02179
02180
02181
02182
02183
02184
02185
n94 Aft
U •• J, D V
02187
02188
02189
02190
02191
2 02192
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
02193
02194
02195
02196
02197
02198
n<$4 nn
OZ199
02200
02201
f+ f\ 1*5 A «
G22Q2
02203
n *5*m ^
QZZD4
02205
02206
02207
02206
02209
Jh M M ,» M
02210
X
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
?
£~
1
1
i
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
02211 2
02212
rt *5*9 4 *l
1
A
a
<
i
4
5
4
3
1
2!
4
3
1
1
1
1
3
5
1
3
?
2
<
j,
4
1
S
3
4
4
2
4
1
9
4
4
4
3
4
§
§
2
3
3
5
A
2
i
5
jf
ducation j
UJ
2
4
1
2
4
3
1
U
4
3
1
1
4
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
4
4
3
1
1
3
4
J,
1
3
4
2
1
2
5
?
1
4
5
?
2
1
2
4
2
2
2
5
,
?
4
4
QZZ1.3 i w J, 4.
02214
Q2215
02216
02217
02216
02219
1
2
1
1
1
2
S
5
2
1
4
2
1
1
4
3
2
5
4
2
1
1
1
2
mployment |
UJ
i
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
i
j»
2
£
3
5
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
2
2
2
5
2
3
2
3
5
4
?
t»
3
2
2
4
4 2
2
2
5
3 2
3
3.
2
1
3
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
3
5
5
4
o
£
2
3
1
1
4
4
1
4
V
a
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
«
a.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
X
i
i
i
i
i
i
?
i
DC
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
5
4
4
3
2
4
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
4
4
4
i
UJ
2
1
3
1
2
1
4*
i
2
-------
s
(/>
1
itionnaire
iber
c
3 3
a z
02220
02?21
02222
n •i'3'31
Uce2 J
02224
02225
02226
HOO o *y
JC.CC. f
02226
02229
n OO"l n
UfisOl!
02231
02232
02233
02234
02235
02236
02237
02238
02239
02240
02241
02242
02243
02244
02245
02246
02247
0224?
02249
02250
D2251
02252
D2253
32254
X
«
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
4>
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
2
4
2
3
1
1
3
2
4
2
3
3
3
1
2
2
i
i
l
•3
K,
2
2
3
2
2
2
i
4
4
4
I
8
3
•o
UJ
1
4
4
3
3
2
4
5
5
3
2
4
2
4
2
2
4
3
3
4
4
3
1
1
4
2
3
3
5
2
5
4
>
->
I
2
3
1
1
2
2
*4
2
2
1
5
2
2
1
1
5
1
3
1
2
1.
1
1
•t
X
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
iloyment
1
Ul
2
1
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
3
•^
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
1
3
2
3
1
3
2
4
3
1
1
5
3
2
3
4
3
3
4
C
o
a
i.
at
a.
1
l
1
l
l
l
1
l
*
i
l
1
i
i
l
l
l
l
l
t
1
l
l
i
M»
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
01
c
ffl
CC
2
3
3
c.
4
4
4
4
3
•t
j
3
4
3
•*
1
3
3
1
3
1
5
3
3
6
1
1
3
•?
3
3
4
3
5
?
8
i
a
UI
2
3
1
1
1
3
2
4
3
2
2
1
2
3
1
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
1
1
3
4
3
2
2
2
1
2
£
a.
2
2
2
2
?
2
2
2
3
2
t
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
>
1
o
S
a)
3
O
2
I
i
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
J,
1
2
?.
1
2
1
1
1
1
X
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r Control
|
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
i
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
«
w
1
stionnaire
iber
ll
02255
02256
02257
rt *3"5 K £t
QZZ98
02259
02260
02261
n*>oxo
U£CD<
02263
02264
nO9 & R
(JjficOP
02266
02267
02266
02269
02270
02271
02272
02273
02274
02275
02276
02277
02278
nsofo
lice / 7
02200
02281
02262
02283
02284
02285
02286
02287
02289
X
&
i
i
i
2
2
1
j.
2
i
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
i
?
1
1
4
4
2
A
4
4
3
4
4
2
2
y.
2
4
2
?!
3
4
1
1
4
1
\
1
4
3
2
1
1
2
cation
3
•o
111
4
S
5
1
3
3
5
1
4
5
2
2
3
3
2
i
4
2
2
4
2
4
4
4
4
3
1
4
3
S
>
'>
*=
a
4
1
1
2
2
4
1
2
5
2
2
?
1
2
2
1
2
1
5
3
2
1
2
3
4
2
2
1
1
1
,
t
UJ
1
1
1
3
4
3
1
4
1
1
03
1
4
5
4
1
3
2
3
3
1
4
3
1
5
2
3
3
2
1
5
4
1
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
4
.9
S.
f,
i
Q.
1
1
1
1
1
1
it
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
s.
3
4
4
/l
V
3
3
3
3
3
^
-3
4
4
3
4
2
*
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
£
•1
2
2
4
2
3
4
3
2
3
lerience J
a.
x
Ul
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
^
3
2
H
J,
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
3
3
1
2
3
2
3
K
S
O.
3
2
2
9
^
2
2
2
i
2
7
£
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
ectionability j
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
•y
£.
1
1
1
1
i
2
1
1
1
1
i
l
l
l
l
2
i
?
2
1
1
1
t
1
>r Control 1
S
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
<
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
i
i
i
i
D-8
-------
S
W
4)
i-
onnaire
»f
a 1
« E
3 3
a z
03001
03002
03003
03004
03005
03006
Q3007
osooa
03009
0301C
03011
03012
03013
03014
03015
03016
03017
03
01«
03019
03020
03021
03022
03
023
03024
03023
03026
03027
03028
03029
03030
03031
03032
03033
03034
03035
03036
03037
03038
03039
03040
03041
03042
03043
03044
03045
03046
03047
03048
03049
03050
03051
03052
03053
03054
OT
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
a
<
9
5
2
1
3
3
2
4
2
3
5
4
§
2
4
1
2
1
3
4
2
3
2
4
i
1
3
2
4
2
3
4
3
2
1
2
2
3
2
4
4
1
3
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
3
3
3
2
c
o
1
"D
UJ
3
4
3
4
2
4
3
2
4
.3
1
2
5
2
2
4
3
2
2
1
3
3
3
1
2
4
4
4
4
3
5
3
4
5
3
2
5
4
5
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
5
3
3
3
1
>
'>
B
<
2
4
2
3
?
2
2
2
1
1
4
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
5
2
1
1
2
2
2
i
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
C
o
>
2
a
E
UJ
i
2
3
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
i
2
1
3
3
(U
c
2
2
3
4
2
3
3
1
4
4
1
2
1
2
2
1
4
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
4
2
3
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
3
5
4
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
1
3
5
5
2
1
c
g
t
a
£
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
ffl
cc
5
3
4
4
?
4
4
"»
J
4
2
3
5
3
4
3
3
«5
4
S
tj
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
4
4
3
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
3
3
3
3
5
5
4
3
2
2
4
4
5
4
4
S
.1
8.
X
UJ
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
3
3
2
3-
2
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
3
2
8
»
CL
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
>
1
o
1
Iff
O
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
H
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
o
O
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
a>
(A
0
B
I
i
i
l
i
i
l
i
i
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
e
I
o
5
S
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
D-9
-------
$
w
V
K
«
|
o £
~ £t
S E
D 3
O Z
03110
03111
03112
03113
03114
03115
03116
03117
0311H
03119
03120
03121
03122
03123
fiTH VA
U J 1 £ *r
03125
03126
03127
n ~t 4 n c
U -*i £ tl
03129
0313C
03
131
03132
03133
03134
03135
03136
03137
0313ft
03139
03140
(Tt 4 Jl 4
UJ 1 *H,
03142
D3143
D3144
33145
33146
73147
33146
13149
33150
33151
33152
33153
33154
33155
13156
33157
33158
53159
)3160
13161
13162
13163
3164
&
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
4
4
4
2
2
4
3
3
2
1
2
1
2
2
5
3
3
1
1
2
1
4
2
2
3
4
4
4
1
3
3
4
4
1
4
2
1
1
2 2
2 5
2
2
4
1
1 2
2 3
2 3
1
8
•^
UJ
9
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
2
3
1
4
3
3
1
3
3
2
1
3
4
1
2
1
4
4
4
4
4
2
3
Z
C
<
1
1
1
2
4
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
4
2
1
2
2
2
5
2
1
2
?.
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
iployment
E
UJ
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
2
J
3
4
4
1
4
1
1
2
4
3
5
4
2
4
1
4
3
3
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
3
4
3
1
4 2
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
3 2
1 2
1 2
3 1
3
1
2 2
1 2
214
2 t
1
4 3
225
1
2422
1
2
3
1
2
1
3
2 2
ception
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
n
OC
3
c,
•3
3
3
5
%
3
5
a
4
4
4
3
K
"
S
5
5
A
H
A
.5
4
5
4
K
5
1
4
5
5
4
5
3
?
•s
3
2
4
3
S
8
I
X
111
1
1
3
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
3 2
132
1
1
1
1
1
131
2
1
2 1
221
2 1
3 3
4
8
ID
O.
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
?
2
2
?
2
2
iectionabilitv
£
l
i
i
l
l
l
1
1
l
i
l
l
l
l
i
l
l.
l
l
i
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
121
4221
5 2
2
•51?
1
1
3321
412
4 1
1
2 1
or Control
S
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
42211
422
1
1
12141211
313121
1
SM
03165
03166
03167
03168
03169
03170
03171
03172
03173
03174
03173
03176
03177
03178
03179
03180
03181
03182
*
<
03184
03185
252
132
233
1 2 5
145
221
1 3 4
2 ? 4
231
222
1 4 1
241
1 1 4
114
244
211
2 1 4
234
214
4
I
(f
4 1
1 3
2 3
114
1 1 4
2 2
1 1 3
3 2
141
3 3
3 4
1 1 3
3 2
3 3
1 1 3
?
s
oc
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 4
1 4
1 3
1 4
i
3211
3211
3711
1 2 1
1 2 1
1
1
1311
2111
2 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
3 2
2 2
3 2
1 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2 1
221
121
03187
03168
03189
03190
03191
03192
03193
03194
03195
03197
03196
03199
03200
03201
03202
03203
03204
03205
03206
03207
03208
03209
03210
03211
03212
03213
03214
03215
03216
03217
03216
03219
2 1
241
214
233
214
222
224
251
252
231
114
223
2 1 3
224
232
5 3
B 2
4 5
2 3
251
213
2 3 3
113
123
122
2 1 2
223
135
123
245
233
145
124
2 1 2
1 1
2 1.
2153211
5 3142211
3 4143211
2 414121.1
3 4151211
112153111
143123211
4 1142212
2 4141311
2 3131211
123141211
1. 22143211
2 3133211
112141311
114132? 11
4 1132?}. 1
4 1141211
115133211
132153211
2 1151311
123133211
124131211
131153211
112142221
132133211
144153111
114131311
1131312J1
133131211
2 214124!
2 4154 11
4 2123121
125122222
2 3131211
3 11322J1
333142211
D-10
-------
0>
w
t;
0)
1-
V
I
C .
g a
S 1
31
6322n
03221
03222
03223
03224
03225
03226
("1^927
uje[
*t
2
4
3
2
2
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
2
3
4
4
'4
2
4
4
3
5
S
2
2
3
1
4
3
9
5
5
4
2
3
3
2
3
4
4
3
>
'S
<
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
4
4
5
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
f
2
1
1
i
2
4
4
5
1
4
3
2
i
1
1
1
2
1
5
S
1
4
2
1
4
1
4
1
1
ment
>
o
I
UJ
3
3
3
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
3
2
4
3
3
1
2
1
3
3
2
4
3
i
1
4
3
3
4
3
1
1
1
2
2
^
*t
1
2
5
3
A
H
3
3
4
2
2
2
4
5
1
5
5
3
5
1
1
2
3
4
3
3
3
2
3
2
4
3
4
4
2
1
1
3
1
3
4
4
3
c
o
a
8
fe
a.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
H1
c
«
tr
4
?
4
2
4
5
5
7
K.,
3
3
4
5
1
3
3
4
i
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
4
4
3
2
5
5
4
3
4
3
5
3
4
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
9
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
8
.1
1
UJ
1
3
1
3
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
3
3
2
c
1
2
2
1
3
1
3
2
2
i
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
x
3
3
2
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
4
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
8
2
CL
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
f,.
2
2
2
2
y
6-
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
1
i
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
I
2
2
2
1
^
•*••
2
2
2
2
i
1
Q
S"
I
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
II
3 3
a z
03275
03276
03277
03278
03279
03280
03281
03282
03283
03284
03285
03286
03287
03288
03289
03290
X
0}
!/>
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
03291 2
03292
03293
03294
2
1
1
03295 2
03296
03297
03298
03299
03300
03301
03302
03303
03304
03305
03306
03307
033Q8
03309
Q3310
03311
03312
03313
03314
03315
03316
03317
03318
03319
03320
03321
03322
03323
03324
03325
03326
03327
03328
03329
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
i
4
1
1
3
S
3
3
3
1
3
3
4
2
5
5
5
2
3
4
S
2
4
1
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
5
4
1
4
1
1
5
2
2
1
1
4
5
c
o
Educati
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
4
4
2
3
5
2
4
4
1
3
1
4
4
3
4
4
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
5
4
5
3
3
2
3
3
5
5
4
3
3
3
•C
U
<
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
4
4
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
i
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
E
J
a
UJ
4
2
3
2
1
3
4
2
4
3
1
3
3
4
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
I
5
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
3
5
4
2
5
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
4
5
2
2
5
5
3
3
2
3
3
?
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
5
4
2
1
3
5
3
1
3
4
1
o
a
8
fe
a.
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
I
1
1
1
t
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
a
CC
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
A
4
3
S
3
5
4
3
4
5
5
5
4
3
4
5
4
4
2
3
3
3
4
5
4
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
4
4
5
3
2
3
C
V
i
X
Ul
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
3
2
1
2
2
1
1
3
2
2
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
4
3
1
a.
2
2
?
*n
C.
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
>
i
c
o
S
03
S
1
1
jt
J,
1
l
i
i
2
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
a
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
2
t
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
i
l
l
l
l
i
l
1
l
2
2
1
e
c
o
OdorC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
D-ll
-------
OJ
W
V
H
V
'ra
c
1 *
ts •"
11
s
f
0333D 2 1
n"^"M i 4
\jjjji i i
03332 2 1
03333 2 2
03334 2 3
n*t*i *i a 4 4
UJJjP 1 1
03336 t 4
03337 2 4
03338 1 3
03339 i 4
03340 1 4
03341 2 5
03342 1 5
03343 1 5
§
S
3
•O
UI
>
1
C
>
O
a
UJ
1
I
.1
1
1
?
'i
cc
22 213
4*1111%
i 3- X A. J. ^
312113
42 313
42 514
541444
1 1 n J. '»
35 513
32 215
44 213
54 514
213313
12 119
1 * 115
14 114
5
a
UJ
u
at
Z
2 3
? 9
*-. f,
2 2
2 3
2 2
21
*j
4
1 2
3 2
1 2
2 3
3 2
3 2
1 3
>
i
§
S
0}
'S
o
1
1
j.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
§
8
o
S
0)
CO
S
V
[_
UJ«' "f «? i
1 03346 1
1 03347 1
1 03348 1
In "t\ A Q i
QJ.J4V Z
1 03350 2
1 03351 1
1 03352 2
1 03353 2
1 03354 2
1 03355 1
1 03356 1
1
a
2
4
4
4
3
i
2
2
3
3
5
C
O
"Q
UI
3
4
JF
5
4
3
3
5
2
4
i
4
2
£
1
<
2
4
i
1
1
1
*•»
i£
2
3
2
2
2
1
4
I
Q.
UJ
1
C
C
O
te
a.
f
S
CC
314
"522
j f^ *»
1514
4314
1313
9 < <5
c. 1 3
214
214
213
414
214
1414
213
I
LU
1
1
1
1
2
&
1
1
3
1
3
2
3
S
s
£
>
1
o
1
I
§
1
O
S
211
2 1 1
311
Ell
211
& 4. -*.
211
211
211
211
2 1 1
311
311
D-12
-------
*
V)
s
V
(0
i %
'S J3
8 E
3 3
O 2
04001
04002
04003
04004
n^ftnc,
u ** u u -3
04006
04007
0400»
04009
04010
04011
04012
04013
04014
04015
04016
04017
04018
04019
04020
04021
04022
04023
f\ Jf « M *
04024
04025
04026
04027
n i.
i nifl
U *» u e o
04029
04030
04Q31
04032
X
a
«
"2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
l
04033 1
04034
D4335
04036
04037
04038
04039
04040
04041
04042
04043
04044
04045
D4046
04047
04046
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
id
1
I
S
5
2
2
J
4
4
2
4
4
5
5
i
1
5
2
4
4
5
4
3
4
5
5
3
4
2
.1.
1
i
5
1
4
3
4
1
1
3
4
4
4
2
2
i
9
4
c
o
•o
IU
"i
2
3
3
1
3
1
3
9
1
4
2
4
4
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
3
4
3
5
4
3
2
3
3
1
3
4
3
04049 243
04050 213
04051 125
04052 231
04053 114
04054 1 S 1
l
> j
.— c
.2 1
S
< u
2~
4
2
2
2
i
t a>
t c
i o
: u
] —
l
2
3
3
4
t
4
133
2
3
133
4
4
1
3
1
1 3
133
4
1
2
1
4
2
2
2
4
2
?
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
S
4
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
2
3 3
4
3 2
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
24
™
2
4
3
1
3
3
3
4
4 2
3 1
2 4
1 3
5
3
3
3 2
2
2
2
1 4
X ~
3
2
1 5
3
5
1
§
S
fc
a.
"l
i
i
l
l
i
i
l
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
*
4>
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
H
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
g>
(0
oc
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
8
0)
U
a
X
UJ
3
1
3
3
•i
j.
2
2
1
1
8
(0
a.
'2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
>
o
S
8
"i
i
i
l
i
i
l
i
o
8
5
S
l"
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
£
o
a
E
UJ
1
4
1
3
3
2
2
2
4
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
1
3
4
.
g
5
2
1
1
3
o
£
2
4
1
2
2
5
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
5
5
2
1
4
4
4
4
1
2
5
5
5
2
4
3
2
2
5
1
2
1
1
2
4
4
4
2
2
3
1
2
4
C
g
0
(U
d.
1
1
1
1
4
J,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
l
1
1
l
l
i
l
l
i
i
l
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
i
i
l
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
l
i
l
i
l
i
i
i
c1
«
cc
3
4
4
3
1
i*
3
3
3
4
3
1
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
4
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
1
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
.1
UJ
2
3
1
3
1
£
3
2
2
2
4
2
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
4
3
1
2
4
1
3
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
4
1
1
3
i
3
3
2
3
1
2
3
8
OL
2
2
2
2
2
Cv
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
?
2
2
2
2
>
'B
<9
C
g
S
09
S
i
A
i
t
i
H
i
1
1
1
i
1
2
1
2
1
2
Z
1
?.
1
1
5
2
1
1
1
?
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
-t
1
1
1
1
i
l
l
1
2
1
1
?
1
e
o
o
0
S
1
1
1
1
1
•!•
1
1
1
1
1
2
i
2
1
2
1
1
?
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
^
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D-13
-------
w
1
01 C .
.« o £
tn 'S .a
S S E
S 3 3
K O Z
04110
04111
04112
04113
n 41 1 ^
U *f 1 X ™
04115
04116
nA * « 7
V*'* 1 /
04118
04119
04120
04121
04122
04123
ft 4 4 O A
U^i^**
04125
04126
04127
04128
04129
04130
04131
04132
04133
04134
04135
04136
J ~ «L ^ w
04137
04138
04139
04140
U ~ -4f ~ W
04141
04142
04143
04144
04145
04146
Q4147
04148
04149
04150
04151
04152
04153
04154
04155
04156
04157
04158
04159
04160
04161
04162
04163
04164
&
1
1
i
1
J
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
9
K*
1
1
2
2
C.
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
i
4
3
5
4
2
2
3
2
3
2
4
5
2
3
3
3
"t
v
1
1
2
4
1
4
1
2
3
5
4
5
1
3
9
5
4
2
2
2
4
1
2
3
1
1
2
2
c
Educatio
2
3
3
2
2
4
3
3
1
3
4
3
2
2
4
2
5
3
2
3
3
2
1
4
4
4
2
3
t*
2
2
4
3
2
2
4
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
1
5
5
Activity
4
i
3
3
ii
i
2
1
1
4
1
4
2
3
?
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
4
1
1
2
4
1
1
2
1
4
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
?
1
1
2
1
>
1 g 8 1 1 . | § I 1 § 1 I
Illliiii !IluI!IIHlilS
1133311 04165 124114133311
34123311 04166 233124131211
1134 21 04167 2532 2131211
3133211 04168 245114121222
A « 1 4 "5 ? 1 1 n4l£9 2449 3132211
•»l^**Jfiiii UTiifcOT £.*»**«• .^ 4i «* fc fr A tt
1 1 ? 3 3 2 2 04170 131141121221
32141211 04171 122132123322
4 A 4 T 1 •» 4 H n44 79 9O^9 R 1 *^ "^ 2 1 1
*t 3. .2 v x Z, 1 U^X/£ c. c j f. ^i-JWfc^i
22123221 04173 2432 41222?2
2131211 04174 132113121222
32123322 04175 143123132211
2132211 04176 2242 2143211
3143211 04177 1524 1121222
2133211 04178 113131113222
3^4 "IO94 4 rt447OO^ A <" O < "( ^1 O4 4
£ 3. j £ £ 1 A, U**3./y,£l^lc,Li«5A
-------
£
5i
«
o>
1-
stionnairs
iber
v c
3 3
a z
04220
04221
04222
04223
04224
04225
04226
04227
0422«
04229
Q423F
04231
04232
04233
04234
X
U)
i
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
i
2
1
04235
04236
H49T7
U*»c J /
04238
04239
0424C
04241
04242
04243
04244
04245
04246
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
%
<
3
3
4
3
1
2
2
4
3
1
4
3
4
3
9
2
1
4
3
4
4
4
4
2
4
1
04247 2 2
0424H
f*l A f\ A f\
Q4g49
04250
04251
0425?
04253
04254
04255
n A **K£
04«pft
04257
04258
04259
04260
04261
Q4262
04263
04264
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
4
1
3
2
4
4
2
1
%
5
4
S
s
3
C
g
8
3
-o
L1J
5
3
5
3
4
2
4
1
S
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
4
4
2
4
2
4
1
4
3
4
2
5
3
4
5
3
4
4
4
4
2
2
1
4
1
>.
'>
S
<
t
1
1
4
1
2
2
1
2
2
4
?•
1
2
1
1
1
4
2
1
2
2
i
1
2
i
2
2
2
3
1
i
2
A
«f
1
3
4
1
4
4
S
1
lloyment
u
UJ
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
0)
O
U
c
5
2
5
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
4
1
4
3
2
5
2
4
3
2
2
4
2
2
5
4
5
4
3
1
1
1
2
3
3
1
.1
&
^
Q.
1
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
l
i
l
1
l
4
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
i
?
«
X.
1
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
3
2
?
d
*t
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
i
«*
2
"<
•3
2
3
3
1
3
3
*?
2
2
3
3
4
1
2
2
erience
0.
x
UJ
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
2
2
I
3
1
2
3
3
4
X
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
4
A
3
2
2
t
2
i
*!•
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
2
4)
1
Q.
2
2
1
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
3
>
ictionabil
'S
O
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
\
1
1
1
2
*
\
1
1
J,
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
r Control
o
•o
O
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
2»
1
1
nil
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
aj
5
W)
K
4$Q4
U"* fc V *t
04295
04296
04297
04298
rt49QQ
u «t «| y V
04300
04301
W T ft y ^
04302
04303
04304
X
«
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
i
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
04305 2
04306
04307
04308
1
1
2
S,
<
3
5
3
3
1
1
4
2
4
4
4
3
4
4
1
1
1
3
9
4
4
3
4
4
5>
4
?
4
5
3
4
3
S
4
4
2
2
4
1
1
1
c
g
8
3
T3
UJ
2
2
3
3
2
3
4
4
3
2
4
1
1
2
2
4
4
4
1
3
3
3
2
3
3
1
3
2
1
2
4
3
4
1
4
3
2
2
4
3
4
1
?
<
.1
4
2
?
1
1
1
2
1
3
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
4
1
2
2
1
9
c
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
3
lloyment
1
ai
3
1
3
2
2
3
2
4
1
2
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
1
3
o>
8
C
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
4
2
4
4
3
1
5
5
1
1
2
1
3
5
4
3
4
4
1
4
3
1
1
4
4
1
-3
1
1
4
1
2
1
3
2
1
C
o
£
CL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i1
s
EC
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
4
?
3
2
2
4
3
2
1
3
3
3
2
3
«
3
4
5
3
«*
2
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
erience
Q.
X
UJ
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
3
4
2
1
1
1
3
3
2
3
•»
.?
3
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
1
X
1
4
1
1
3
•i
3
1
1
3
3
4
1
2
2
0)
1
0.
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
y
&
i
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
$
ictionabil
'S
O
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
i
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Z
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3,
1
1
ir Control
a
•o
O
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
?
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3,
t
X
1
2
1
1
•i
^
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D-15
-------
y u j) /
05038
namo
Uvu jy
05040
05041
J •/ W ™? J^
05042
05043
05044
C5045
05046
D5047
D5048
H^fidQ
J .? U •* 7
35050
D5051
35052
D5053
X
&
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
i
1
2
2
2
2
i
•2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
4.
1
2
*
4-
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
i
i
35054 1
0)
S
3
2
1
2
2
4
4
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
4
4
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
1
3
1
4
3
4
1
1
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
c
a
Educatii
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
5
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
A
^
1
3
5
3
1
5
4
3
4
5
5
2
4
3
5
4
5
«•
4
9
4
3
3
3
4
4
*T
4
5
9
2
3
Activity
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
2
1
3
9
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
4
2
1
3
3
3
1
2
1
2
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
C
Employ
3
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
4
3
1
2-
3
2
1
4
1
2
4
4
1
c
4
2
2
4
3
3
4
2
3
4
4
4
4
2
1
3
4
3
3
2
1
5
2
2
4
2
.
4
3
2
1
3
2
1
5
4
o
C
1
3
3
2
4
2
1
4
2
4
5
2
C
g
Q.
I
CL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
i
j>
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
«
CC
3
2
4
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
1
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
2
4
S
*
H*
3
3
3
8
0)
I
UJ
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
3
2
1
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
I
CL
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
3
2.
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
•>
i£
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
>•
1
Q
I
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
O
C
rt
Odor Ci
1
2
1
i :
i
i
2
£
V
K
0)
1
O
-------
0>
'«
e
0) C .
z. a v
a It
£ ai
05110
(1*54 4 1
U 3 1 1 1
05112
05113
05114
05115
05116
05117
05ii A
W **1 J. v>
05119
05120
05121
05122
ftc* ox
U 31 c^
05124
05125
05126
05127
05126
05129
05130
05131
05132
05133
05134
05135
05136
05137
05138
05139
05140
05141
05142
05143
05144
05149
05146
05147
05148
05149
05150
05151
05152
05153
05154
05155
05156
05157
0515S
05159
05160
05161
05162
05163
05164
1
9
2
2
1
2
1
i
l
i
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
i
2
1
2
2
1
•^
1
1
i
i
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
i
i
i
i
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
i
2
1
1
2
9
4
4
4
1
1
2
3
2
1
3
3
2
4
3
2
2
2
3
3
4
:2
2
3
3
4
3
4
3
2
4
S
2
3
4
2
2
4
4
•3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
4
3
2
1
4
> >
= | i S 1 | 1 = 1 g 8 | 1
lit if it B if Hi „ .In {lit |H
•o5scSsx«S-o »3=2§>-o8£«fc»>t.2£ij
U1il nRi ?** 14.^*111^3111
ft ,3 1 *£ -^ C J, Jt U71/<2 llJJ. llj.-JJJi'*
25 5131211 05174 2514 1121322
5114133211 05175 2232 4132221
51232 Q5176 2132 2132211
4142132311 05177 2332 32
4j"t<1T"K^1i| nRo Id. 1 4 1 99
IJliPJJll U31/Q 1 1 J 3 t C
22 3131211 05179 2192 4123221
3115113222 05180 2432 2122211
4144123111 05181 123132132211
22 3121211 05182 142132123122
32 4132211 05183 242123132211
4122122222 05184 1441242
41352 05185 1253 1123211
4113132211 05186 1123 1121321
14^*34'%494>t rtCilO'fO^K^ 44^1944
132131211 05187 23SZ 41"»l
-------
flj
«
s
w
'm
c L
o 5
t> "p
0} C
3 3
a z
05220
05221
05222
05223
05224
05225
03226
05227
05228
05229
05230
05231
05232
05233
05234
ncto-ie
U374
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0)
f
4
2
3
4
5
2
4
3
3
3
5-
3
4
1
1
4
2
1
3
5
4
1
1
2
1
4
2
2
3
1
3
5
1
1
3
3
3
§
3
3
1
i
5
4
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
3
2
§
•o
UJ
5
3
2
2
1
4
3
3
3
3
2
5
1
5
3
3
4
5
1
1
3
1
4
3
2
4
4
3
4
2
4
5
5
4
3
4
4
5
4
3
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
5
4
3
3
4
>
'>
z
<
1
1
2
2
4
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
4
2
2
3
1
<9
^
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
3
1
2
i
1
1
i
2
1
4
4
1
1
S
0)
E
•>
o
-^
UJ
1
2
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
1
|
4
4
3
3
1
4
2
3
3
2
1
4
5
3
1
4
4
2
2
1
4
3
2
4
3
2
3
2
4
1
4
5
2
4
4
3
4
2
2
4
2
2
5
4
2
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
2
c
0
£
a.
1
l
l
l
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
d
x
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
at
c
»
cc
2
2
3
2
e
Oi
01
CL
X
UJ
3
4
3
3
a>
s
a.
3
2
2
>
1
C
O
1
'S
o
2
2
1
2
g
c
o
o
•o
O
2
2
1
2
m
V)
OU
|_
a>
a
c .
O £
a -8
V C
ai
05275
05276
05277
05278
05279
3
3
£
?
?
2
2
3
3
j
3
2
2
1
2
2
4
3
1
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
^>
K-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
05280
05281
05282
05283
X
4}
(/)
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
05284 2
052«5
05286
05287
0528B
05289
« K o o n
U!>•
1
0
S
§
1
I
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
i
1
2
I
2
2
1
I
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
C
o
o
3
s
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
D-18
-------
0>
S
S
1-
jstionnaire
Tiber
3 3
a z
SS330
05331
05332
05333
05334
05335
05336
D5337
nKTt o
UOjj'i
05339
05340
05341
05342
05343
05344
05345
05346
r\ R ^ A T
05347
05345
rt d "1 A Q
Qp349
05350
X
3,
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
05351 1
05352 1
05353 1
05354 1
D5355 1
1
2
3
1
4
4
3
1
3
4
1
i
i
2
3
2
4
3
.
1
2
i
i
|
•o
UJ
4
3
2
3
4
3
2
2
*5
iff
4
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
1
2
1
2
2
2 2
2 2
05356 225
05357 235
>
:>
ts
1
1
3
2
2
2
3
2
1
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
i
1
1
ployment
LU
4
2
2
1
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
i 4
i 3
2
i 1
05358 2322
05359 2292
05360 112
05361 1 1
3
2 3
D5362 1123
05363 2242
05364 2 § 3 2
05365 12313
05366 1524
0)
I
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
-I
.J
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
4
2
4
C
o
1
£
a.
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
I
oc
3
I
a.
X
UJ
1
8
S
a.
3
ectionability |
S
1
>r Control
5
i
2
in
1
E
1
i s
It
3 3
d z
05372
05373
2
3
3
4
5
4
^
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
4
2
3
2
2
5!
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
i
l
i
i
i
«
05374
05375
05376
05377
05378
05379
»* 0. 1 ft *\
1 J. U 3 J O (,J
05381
2
2
05382
05383
3
3
3
4
3
1
•t
2
2
2
1
3
4
T
3
2
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
O
/*
i
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
05384
05385
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
05386 2 ?
05387
05386
nR
.e
S
i
4
3
2
3
3
1
2
3
3
1
3
2
2
1
3
5
o
r:
1
i
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
5
C
1
1
2
3
3
?
3
2
*
ployment 1
£
UJ
2
2
4
1
1
X
1
4
4
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
C
4
4
5
3
4
4
3
2
3
3
3
5
3
3
4
2
4
3
3
J
2
2
2
2
4
3
3
4
1
3
3
3
4
1
ifc
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
3
2
ception j
V
0.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
<
4i
1
«
ok
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
J*
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
f
to
CC
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
0
&
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
fc
2
?
f-
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
1
JB
3
3
3
2
1
3
perience |
X
UJ
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
2
4
*t
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
1
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
4
4
3
2
2
2
3
1
4
I
s.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
?
f.-
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
1
2
jectionability |
S
2
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
or Control |
•o
O
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
5
fa>
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D-19
-------
0}
Si
S
estionnaire |
mber
3 3
O Z
-56001
06002
06003
06004
06005
06006
06007
06006
06009
0601D
06011
06012
06Q13
06014
06015
06016
06017
06018
06019
06020
06021
06022
06023
06024
06025
06026
06027
06028
06029
06030
06031
06032
06033
06034
06035
06036
06037
06038
06039
06040
06041
06042
06043
06044
06043
06046
06047
06048
06049
06050
06051
06052
06053
06054
06055
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
i
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
l
1
i
2
2
2
1
i
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
i
i
2
1
1
01
<
2
1
3
4
4
4
1
1
4
1
4
2
1
4
4
1
3
5
1
3
4
3
3
4
3
2
4
4
4
5
3
i
2
3
3
4
1
4
3
3
3
4
3
5
4
4
3
2
2
2
§
3
5
3
4
.1
1
•o
uj
4
2
4
3
1
1
3
4
4
5
2
5
5
3
3
4
3
1
3
3
3
5
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
3
4
2
2
3
5
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
2
3
5
5
1
1
2
1
4
3
>
'_>
u
<
i
3
5
1
2
9
1
1
2
i
-2
1
1
2
2
3
2
1
5
1
1
1
2
4
2
2
2
1
1
4
1
3
2
2
1
i
2
i
1
2
1
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
i
4
1
1
iployment
UJ
2
3
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
1
1
3
1
3
a>
C
3
3
5
4
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
4
2
2
4
4
5
5
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
1
2
4
4
1
2
2
4
2
1
3
2
1
1
2
4
4
5
1
1
2
1
4
5
ception
&
n_
i
l
1
l
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
i
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
f
n
CC
3
2
3
2
8
0)
0)
Q.
X
Ul
3
3
3
3
8
oT
1
1
2
2
jectionability 1
S
1
1
1
1
1
3
0
S
1
2
1
1
at
5)
{j
V
1-
estionnaire
mber
ai
06056
06057
06056
06059
06060
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
4
3
3
1
2
4
3
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
06061
06062
06063
06064
06065
06066
06067
06068
06069
06070
06071
06072
1
3
4
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
06073
06074
06075
06076
06077
3
2
2
1
1
06078
06079
2
3
3
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
0608C
06081
06082
06083
06084
3
1
2
1
1
06085
06086
2
4
2
2
2
1
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
06087
06088
06Q89
06090
06091
2
3
2
2
2
06092
06093
06094
2
3
2
3
3
3
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
06095
06096
06097
06096
06099
06100
06101
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
06102
06103
06104
06105
06106
06107
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
1
06108
06109
06110
x
to
W
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
i
i
i
2
i
i
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
i
i
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
i
2
2
2
4
4
1
3
1
i
3
3
3
4
5
1
1
5
4
1
S
3
A
1
1
2
2
4
3
2
4
?
2
4
3
i
5
2
2
2
3
4
3
3
4
4
5
3
4
i
2
5
3
3
2
2
3
i
1
i ucation 1
T3
IU
4
9
3
5
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
4
4
3
2
4
4
4
3
3
1
4
3
1
5
4
2
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
1
3
3
2
4
4
3
4
>
,e
£
<
1
1
3
i
i
i
2
1
1
2
4
1
1
4
2
3
4
1
i
3
3
2
i
i
l
2
i
1
1
4
1
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
i
2
1
i
4
i
i
2
i
4
2
1
2
i
2
1
3
I
1
0.
fc
UJ
3
1
1
4
.2
2
3
2
2
4
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
0)
£
5
5
2
5
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
4
2
4
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
4
3
2
2
3
4
2
4
2
2 3
3 2
1
1
4 3
2
2 3
1
4
2
2 5
1 2
3
3
2
3
1
4
C
O
!
£
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
?
s
CC
2
3
3
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
0)
o
c
0)
1
ui
3
3
3
1
1
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
8
CO
0.
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
3
2
3
3 2
4
422
2
3
2
4
3
3
2
3
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3 3
3 3
2 2
2 2
3 2
3 2
3 2
4
3 3
3 1
3 1
1 2
2 2
3 2
bjectionability |
O
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
dor Control |
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
4 2
1
3 2
3
4 5
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
3
2 2
2 2
3 3
3 3
1
I
2
1
1
1
2
1
D-20
-------
£
'5
c
0) C ^_
! II
f ai
06111
06112
06113
06114
06115
06116
06117
06118
06119
06120
06121
06122
06123
06124
06125
06126
06127
06128
06129
06130
06131
06132
06133
06134
06135
06136
06137
06138
06139
06140
06141
f* f. 4 A**
DOl^fi
06143
06144
06145
06146
06147
06148
06149
06150
06151
06152
06153
06154
06155
06156
06137
06158
06159
06160
06161
06162
06163
06164
06165
c
9
g J, %
(A < 111
2 1 4
151
232
133
134
224
2 2 1
151
112
221
241
213
143
142
152
251
143
211
224
123
214
1 1 3
144
141
234
223
142
241
113
214
2 1 3
4 * A
1 1 *
123
124
213
112
124
123
224
124
223
141
124
233
133
225
214
112
143
193
123
223
2 ? 4
124
131
>
;>
u
<
2
4
2
3
1
2
2
4
1
2
2
i
i
i
4
2
1
2
i
1
2
i
i
i
2
2
4
4
i
1
a
i"
3
3
5
5
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
2
i
l
s
>• QJ *5
Oca
I 1 1
uj £ £
3 1
l i
l l
3 1
431
3 1
2 2
1 2
421
1 2
2 1
231
242
132
2 2
1 2
132
1 2
141
121
5 2
321
322
422
4 2
2 1
1 1
1 1
421
221
4 2
24 4
1 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
1 2
221
231
2 1
141
3 1
331
142
242
151
131
221
322
342
142
1 2 i
142
4 2
221
4 i 1
.?
a
cc
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
9
£
1
2
2
3
1
3
3
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
1
8
£
i
X
UJ
3
1
2
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
9
£
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
1
2
2
3
3
1
1 1
a a
n
§ §
1 1 '"
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
1 1
2 1
1 1
^ ^
i i
i i
2 1
2 2
14
1
1 1
1 1
2 2
1 1
2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
1 1
2 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
! B I g . fl
0>C,_ °>.E ° C 00
s || ISSl&f'i.is
f$iga!?t§gSSjf$
t-ozw4
UOcUO 1 3 1 ** 1 1 1 c £ 1 1
06207 1324 3131311
06208 2222 3122211
06209 1514 1132211
06210 2422 1132211
06211 2322 3123321
06212 1125 4123221
06213 1125 3123221
06214 141132133321
06215 2432 42
06216 1444 42
06217 133131123721
0621S 1321342
06219 2422 22
06220 2342 3122322
D-21
-------
s
w
s
H
£
'1 £
Is J » 1 «
It „ . f 1 i !
|=S&-oSE§
Oz
3 S
§ § si
•S £ .2 o
& » -c s °
S ; Q. 8 .£. o
o> <5 x *° S p
Q. DC tU Q. O O
114 22
2
2
123322
123322
2
2
143211
123322
2
2
133211
131211
s
ff>
t»
H
£
'5
c
0 fe
§** c
i
o z
06276
06277
06278
06279
06280
06281
06282
06283
06284
06285
06266
06287
0628S
2 06289
123122 06290
123211 06291
1,3 3 3 1 1 06292
i: 1 4 22 06293
2 06294
133211 06295
123312 06296
19 1 t "3 9 0(4907
f. J c. a. £ uoey /
121221 06298
2 06299
124 11 06300
2Q63Q1
W W •£ U A
2 06302
113222 06303
123311 06304
123111 06305
2 06306
2 06307
2 06308
2 06309
1 ^ 3 9 1 f Q63il fl
X iP •«* *- X X WOJXw
141211 06311
X
U5
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
•3
a
<
4
4
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
3
4
3
3
2
2
1
4
i
i
5
5
1
1
§
S
3
•o
UJ
2
2
3
4
3
1
3
4
3
2
2
4
4
2
2
4
1
2
4
3
5
4
4
1
2
>
;|
S
<
1
1
1
2
i
9
1
1
1
1
i
i
2
2
i
2
2
2
1
3
i
3
3
4
1"
4
3 3
3 3
432
432
432
432
133
AT.*
C
O)
>
o
a
E
LJU
3
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
4
2
4
2
1
4
J, J. ~r JL
1421141
142211 06312 2422
122122 06313 1143
124 22 06314 1143
124 22 06315 2242
2 06316 2 2 2 2
124 22 06317 2222
3 1
«r
3
4
312
2 2
1
3 2 1
14 4
1 1
231
1
1
1
3211
2221
3122322
2133211
2123222
3132221
123322 06318 123113133311
132211 06319 113122142321
123222 06320 2132
121211 06321 2332
122211 06322 2432
122211 06323 1143
113322 06324 2 i 4 -J
123322 Q6325 2342
2 06326 2422
2 06327 1954
2 06328 2432
2 06329 1 :
1 1 2 1 ?. 2 1
3132211
4123122
3123211
3 2
3123122
4 3
L 2 3 1 2
1
1123111
5123111
821142
123311 06330 212121
124
1 1
D-22
-------
«
'5
c
* c u.
i 11
0) D D
H a 2
06331
C6332
HA^n
u o j j .3
06334
06335
06336
06337
0633S
Q6339
06340
06341
06342
16343
v.f t? J "f J
06344
06345
06346
06347
D6348
06349
06350
06351
06352
06353
06354
06355
06356
06357
06358
06359
06360
06361
06362
06363
06364
06365
06366
06367
06368
06369
06370
njfm
UO J/l
06372
06373
06374
06375
06376
06377
06378
06379
06380
06381
06382
06383
06384
06385
c
3
5 §> •?
VI < Ul
213
253
14 A
1 **
114
253
124
151
131
145
122
112
119
* * C
113
114
131
133
123
124
223
124
252
244
131
134
232
113
232
141
145
242
154
2 1 3
114
242
131
212
122
124
122
244
t A K.
1*3
2 4 3
224
142
1 1 3
224
223
i i 3
222
131
145
252
244
224
225
>
'>
1
<
1
?
jt
\
3
2
1
4
1
1
1
3
i
i
i
i
i
l
i
i
4
2
1
1
2
i
i
5
1
2
4
?
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1'
2
2
1
1
2
2
i
2
5
1
2
1
2
?!
>
O
a.
L1J
2
1
3
1
3
4
4
•f
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
4
1
3
1
3
1
2
C
O
0) 'w
1 « ?
" s s
- a! x
1 1 2
112
14 T
1 -3
112
1 2
4 2
513
1 1 2
512
3 2
5 2
1 2
11*!
x j- -2
412
2 2
412
2 2
4 2
2 2
2 2
1 2
312
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
1 2
2
3 2
412
4 1 2
2 1 3
1 1 2
3 2
i 2
312
3 2
2 2
5 2
4 1 3
413
** 1 ^
4 2
313
211.
212
312
213
313
3 2
112
5 1 2
1 1 1
2 2
2 2
112
8
i
'i o
a «
x *
uj a.
4
3 2
3|*H
z
1 2
2 2
3 2
1 2
? 9
£
1
c
o
'i
!a
O
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
i
1
1
1
JL
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
?
1
s
c
o
O
i5
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
•b
i
i
i
2
1
1
2 .
2
2
1
>
a> +- ^ "o
1 | g 8 It
* § k -S ? > - 1 . I 53
"2 « f 1 5 t I S -E 1 8 I o
S S 1 J »-oS £ls|,Sloo
l-azo5
-------
£ 1
ol
<§
06441 1143 4132211
06442 223141132211
06443 2232 3114 22
06444 125113113122
06445 2432 2122322
D-24
------- |