Odor frequency and odor annoyance. Part I: assessment of frequency, intensity and hedonic tone of environmental odors in the field
Odors can be evaluated as being pleasant or unpleasant (hedonic tone), but this differentiation was not incorporated into environmental odor regulation. In order to study the hedonic-induced modification of dose–response associations for community odor annoyance a pertinent field study was conducted. This paper covers the first step, namely the development and validation of a standardized human observation strategy for the direct quantification of the frequency, intensity, and hedonic tone of environmental odors in the field.
Grids with equidistant observation points were located around six industrial odor sources, two with pleasant (sweets, rusk bakery), two with neutral (textile production, seed oil production), and two with unpleasant odor emissions (fat refinery, cast iron production). These points were visited by trained observers, screened for normal olfaction and reliable performance, in a systematic fashion for an observation time of 10 min duration. Exposure-related information from the observers in terms of frequency, intensity (six-point scale) and hedonic tone (nine-point scale) were compared to that of 1,456 residents using the same rating scales.
Residents evaluated the industrial odors more intense and more unpleasant than the panelists. Furthermore, for the residents only negative relations between odor intensity and hedonic tone were found while for the observer pleasant odor became more pleasant with increasing intensity. Instead of three classes of industrial odors, namely pleasant, neutral and unpleasant, the responses allowed only for two odor classes, namely pleasant and not pleasant, the latter also covering the neutral category.
The developed methodology has been shown to yield valid information about odor exposure in the field. With regard to different application settings the discrepancies between external observers and affected residents are discussed in terms of different information processing strategies, namely stimulus-based (bottom-up) for the panel and memory-based and, thus, subject to cognitive bias for the residents (top-down).
KeywordsOdor perception Frequency Intensity Hedonic tone Field study
This research was partly supported by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, Agriculture and Consumer Protection of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (MUNLV NRW) and the Ministry of the Environment and Traffic of the State of Baden-Württemberg (UVM BW), and by the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI). We would like to thank Dr. Ursula Krämer (IUF, Düsseldorf) for statistical and epidemiological advice, Frank Müller and Hans-Georg Bruder (LANUV, Essen) for their support in selecting adequate industrial odor sources and carrying out some of the field measurements, and Dr. Armin Junker (Troisdorf) for his critical contributions in the planning phase of this study.
- Both R (2001) Directive on odor in ambient air—an established system of odor measurement and odor regulations in Germany. Paper presented at the 1st IWA international conference on odor and VOCs: measurement, regulation and control techniques in Sydney, Australia, 25–28 March 2001Google Scholar
- Cain WS (1969) Odor intensity: differences in the exponent of psychophysical function. Percept Psychophys 6:349–354Google Scholar
- Dalton P (2003) How people sense, perceive and react to odors. Biocycle 44:26–29Google Scholar
- DIN EN13725 (2003) Air quality–determination of odor concentration by dynamic olfactometry, CEN, Brussels, April 2003. http://www.cenorm.be
- Evans GW, Cohen S (1987) Environmental Stressors. In: Stokols D, Altman I (eds) Handbook of environmental psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 571–610Google Scholar
- Guideline on odour in ambient air (GOAA) (1998/1999) Determination and evaluation of odour immissions. Berlin, Länderausschuss für Immissionsschutz, LAI-Schriftenreihe No. 5 (in German); meanwhile revised in 2004 (available in English at http://www.lanuv.nrw.de)
- Guideline VDI 3881/Part 1 (1986) Olfactometry—odour threshold determination—fundamentals (Issue German/English 5/86). Düsseldorf, Verein Deutscher IngenieureGoogle Scholar
- Guideline VDI 3881/Part 2 (1987) Olfactometry—odour threshold determination—sampling (Issue German/English 1/87). Düsseldorf, Verein Deutscher IngenieureGoogle Scholar
- Guideline VDI 3881/Part 3 (1986) Olfactometry—odour threshold determination—olfactometers with gas jet dilution (Issue German/English 11/86). Düsseldorf, Verein Deutscher IngenieureGoogle Scholar
- Guideline VDI 3881/Part 4 (1989) Olfactometry—odour threshold determination—instructions for application and performance characteristics (Issue German 12/89). Düsseldorf, Verein Deutscher IngenieureGoogle Scholar
- Guideline VDI 3882/Part 1 (1992) Olfactometry; determination of odour intensity (Issue German/English 10/92). Düsseldorf, Verein Deutscher IngenieureGoogle Scholar
- Guideline VDI 3882/Part 2 (1994) Olfactometry; Determination of hedonic odour tone (Issue German/English 09/94). Düsseldorf, Verein Deutscher IngenieureGoogle Scholar
- Guideline VDI 3883/Part 1 (1997) Effects and assessment of odours—psychometric assessment of odour annoyance—questionnaires (Issue German/English 07/97). Düsseldorf, Verein Deutscher IngenieureGoogle Scholar
- Guideline VDI 3940 (1993) Determination of odourants in ambient air by field inspections. Düsseldorf. (German/English); meanwhile revised Guideline VDI 3940 Part 1 (2006), Düsseldorf, Verein Deutscher IngenieureGoogle Scholar
- Guski R, Bosshardt HG (1992) Gibt e seine “unbeeinflusste” Lästigkeit? Zeitschrift für Lärmbekämpfung 39:67–74Google Scholar
- Hummel T, Heilmann S, Murphy C (2002) Age-related changes of chemosensory functions. In: Rouby C, Schaal B, Dubois D, Gervais R, Holley A (eds) Olfaction, taste, and cognition. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 441–456Google Scholar
- Moskowitz HR, Dravnieks A, Klarman LA (1976) Odor intensity and pleasantness for a diverse set of odorants. Percept Psychophys 19:122–128Google Scholar
- Rabin MD, Cain WS (1989) Attention and learning in the perception of odor mixtures. In: Laing DG, Cain WS, McBride RL, Ache BW (eds) Perception of complex smells and tastes. Academic, Sydney, pp 173–188Google Scholar
- Smeets MA, King CJ, Dalton P (2003) Pre-existing beliefs about health effects from exposure to odors in the environment. Poster presented at the 2nd IWA international conference on odors and VOCs: Measurement, regulation and control techniques in Singapore, 14–17 September 2003Google Scholar
- Steinheider B, Both R, Winneke G (1998) Field studies on environmental odors inducing annoyance as well as gastric and general health-related symptoms. J Psychophysiol 12:64–79Google Scholar
- Van Broeck GW, Van Langenhove H, Nieuwejaers B (2001) Recent odor regulation developments in Flanders: ambient odor quality standards based on dose response relationships. Paper presented at the 1st IWA international conference on odor and VOCs: measurement, regulation and control techniques in Sydney, Australia, 25–28 March 2001Google Scholar
- Winneke G, Kastka J (1987) Comparison of odor annoyance-data from different industrial sources: problems and implications. In: Koelega HS (ed) Environmental annoyance. Characterization, measurement and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 129–137Google Scholar
- Yoshida M (1972) Studies in psychometric classification of odors (7). Jpn Psychophys Res 14:101–108Google Scholar