Next Article in Journal
Investigating the Influence of the Implementation of an Energy Development Plan on Air Quality Using WRF-CAMx Modeling Tools: A Case Study of Shandong Province in China
Previous Article in Journal
Temporal Analysis of OMI-Observed Tropospheric NO2 Columns over East Asia during 2006–2015
Previous Article in Special Issue
Olfactory Characterization of Typical Odorous Pollutants Part I: Relationship Between the Hedonic Tone and Odor Concentration
Open AccessArticle

Comparing Annoyance Potency Assessments for Odors from Different Livestock Animals

1
Department of Environmental Health, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria
2
Air Quality Control, Government of Styria, 8010 Graz, Austria
3
Department Chemistry and Environment, Government of Salzburg, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
4
Agricultural Research and Education Centre Raumberg-Gumpenstein, 8952 Irdning-Donnersbachtal, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2019, 10(11), 659; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10110659
Received: 25 September 2019 / Revised: 24 October 2019 / Accepted: 25 October 2019 / Published: 29 October 2019
(1) Background: When it comes to estimating the annoyance potency of odors, European countries relate to different guidelines. In a previous study we compared complaint rates for different agricultural odors, but due to different guidelines, the results we obtained are hard to generalize. (2) Methods: We compare our findings on complaint rates to Dutch and German findings on annoyance rates, using diverse regression models. We also discuss whether the use of the polarity profile for hedonic odor quality could improve annoyance potency assessment. This is demonstrated by comparing the graphical profiles of two different odor types (swine and cattle). (3) Results: Official complaint rates are comparable to a percentage of annoyed residents. Confounder variables such as personal variables do not greatly contribute to annoyance. However, individual emission sites also showed an important influence on complaints and hence on annoyance. Considering the hedonic quality of odors via the polarity profile method for improving an annoyance potency assessment cannot be recommended when using the given state of the method. This is particularly true when it comes to the rating of specific odors, as the method then seems to lack reliability. (4) Conclusions: Where data on annoyance rates are lacking, complaint data could be used instead. View Full-Text
Keywords: odor annoyance; annoyance potency; odor guidelines; odor frequency; hedonic odor quality odor annoyance; annoyance potency; odor guidelines; odor frequency; hedonic odor quality
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Moshammer, H.; Oettl, D.; Mandl, M.; Kropsch, M.; Weitensfelder, L. Comparing Annoyance Potency Assessments for Odors from Different Livestock Animals. Atmosphere 2019, 10, 659.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop