Abstract
Objective
Risk-assessment for environmental odors and the development of an appropriate guideline for protection against undue odor annoyance have long been hampered by the difficulties of assessing odor exposure and community annoyance responses. In recent years, however, dose–response associations between frequency of odor events and odor annoyance level in the affected population were established. However, the influence of hedonic tone (pleasantness–unpleasantness) and perceived odor strength (intensity) on the degree of odor annoyance have long been neglected in such studies and accompanying guidelines. In order to close this gap a pertinent field study was conducted in the vicinity of six odor emitting plants, two with pleasant (sweets production, rusk bakery), with neutral (textile production, seed oil production), and with presumably unpleasant odor emissions (fat refinery, cast iron production).
Methods
A standardized sensory method was developed (described in Part I in the accompanying paper) to quantify intensity and hedonic tone within the assessment of odor exposure by systematic field inspection with trained observers. Additionally, exposure-information, the degree of annoyance, and the frequency of general health complaints and irritation symptoms were collected from the exposed residents through direct interviews. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to establish dose–response associations between odor frequency, intensity and hedonic tone as independent variables and annoyance or symptom reporting as the dependent variable.
Results
It is shown that exposure-annoyance as well as exposure–symptom associations are strongly influenced by odor hedonic. Whereas pleasant odors induced little to no annoyance, both neutral and unpleasant ones did. Additional inclusion of odor intensity did not improve the prediction of odor annoyance. Frequency of reported symptoms was found to be exclusively mediated by annoyance. The results are discussed in terms of environmental stress emphasizing the WHO-definition of health.
Conclusions
Based on these findings the existing German guideline against undue odor annoyance was modified.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Both R (2001) Directive on odour in ambient air: an established system of odour regulation in Germany. Water Sci Technol 44:119–126
Both R, Sucker K, Winneke G, Koch E (2004) Odour intensity and hedonic tone—important parameters to describe odour annoyance of residents. Water Sci Technol 50:83–92
Campell JM (1983) Ambient stressors. Environ Behav 15:355–380
Cavalini PM, Koeter-Kemmerling LG, Pulles MPJ (1991) Coping with odor annoyance and odor concentration: three field studies. J Environ Psychol 11:123–142
Cavalini PM (1994) Industrial odorants: the relationship between modeled exposure concentration and annoyance. Arch Environ Health 49:344–351
Clark CR (1984) The effects of noise on health. In: Jones DM, Chapman AJ (eds) Noise and society. Wiley, Chichester, pp 11–124
Dalton P (1996) Odor perception and beliefs about risk. Chem Senses 21:447–458
Dalton P (2003) How people sense, perceive and react to odors. Biocycle 44:26–29
Dravnieks A, O’Neill HJ (1979) Annoyance potentials of air pollution odors. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 40:85–95
Federal Protection Act for Ambient Air (1974/1990) Act on the prevention of harmful effects on the environment caused by air pollution, noise, vibration and similar phenomena (Federal Immission Control Act = Bundes-Immissionschutzgesetz - BImSchG) Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety, Bonn (BGBl. I p 880) (available in English)
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 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 Ingenieure
Guski R (ed) (1987) Lärm - Wirkungen unerwünschter Geräusche. Bern, Huber
Hangartner M, Wüst J (1994) Geruchshäufigkeiten als Maß für die Geruchsbelästigung. Staub Reinh Luft 54:45–49
Jacob TJC, Fraser C, Wang L, Walker V, O’Connor S (2003) Psychophysical evaluation of responses to pleasant and mal-odour stimulation in human subjects; adaptation, dose response and gender differences. Int J Psychophysiol 48:67–80
Junker A (1998) Belästigung als Funktion der Intensität, Hedonie und Häufigkeit des Auftretens von Gerüchen. In: KRdL im VDI/DIN (ed.) Gerüche in der Umwelt. Innenraum und Außenluft. VDI-Bericht 1373, pp 373–381
Kastka J (1976) Untersuchungen zur Belästigungswirkung der Umweltbedingungen Verkehrslärm und Industriegerüche. In: Kaminski G (ed) Umweltpsychologie. Perspektiven – Probleme – Praxis. Klett-Verlag, Stuttgart, pp 187–223
Lindvall T, Radford TP (1973) Measurement of annoyance due to exposure to environmental factors. Environ Res 6:1–36
Mahin T D (2001) Comparison of different approaches used to regulate odours around the world. Water Sci Technol 44:87–102
McMillan DE (1999) Neurobehavioral toxicology and addiction. In: Niesink JRM, Jaspers RMA, Kornet LMW, van Ree JM, Tilson HA (eds) Introduction to neurobehavioral toxicology: food and environment. CRC-Press, Boca Raton, pp 3–24
Miedema HME, Vos H (1998) Exposure–response relationships for transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am 104:3432–3445
Miedema HME (2004) Relationship between exposure to multiple noise sources and noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am 116:949–957
Miedema HME, Walpot JI, Vos H, Steunenberg CF (2000) Exposure–annoyance relationships for odour from industrial sources. Atmos Environ 34:2927–2936
Papo D, Eberlein-König B, Berresheim HW, Huss-Marp J, Grimm V, Ring J, Behrendt H, Winneke G (2006) Chemosensory function and psychological profile in patients with multiple chemical sensitivity: comparison with odor-sensitive and asymptomatic controls. J Psychosom Res 60:199–209
Schultz THJ (1978) Synthesis of social surveys on noise annoyance. J Acoust Soc Am 64:377–405
Shusterman D (1992) Critical review: the health significance of environmental odor pollution. Arch Environ Health 47:76–87
Steinheider B, Winneke G (1993) Industrial odors as environmental stressors: exposure-annoyance associations and their modification by coping, age and perceived health. J Environ Psychol 13:353–363
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 12:64–79
Steinheider B, Winneke G, Schlipköter HW (1993) Somatische und psychische Wirkungen intensiver Geruchsimmissionen. Eine Fallstudie aus der Substratherstellung für die Champignonzucht. Staub - Reinh Luft 53:425–431
Sucker K, Both R, Winneke G (2001) Adverse effects of environmental odors: reviewing studies on annoyance response and symptom reporting. Water Sci Technol 44:43–51
Van Harreveld AP (2004) Odor management tools—filling the gaps. Water Sci Technol 50:1–8
Van Thriel C, Triebig G, Bolt HM (2006) Editorial: evaluation of chemosensory effects due to occupational exposure. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 79:265–267
Winneke G, Kastka J (1987) Comparison of odour-annoyance data from different industrial sources: problems and implications. In: Koelega HS (ed) Environmental annoyance: characterization, measurement and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 129–137
Winneke G, Neuf M (1992) Psychological response to sensory stimulation by environmental stressors: Trait or state? Appl Psychol 41:257–267
Acknowledgments
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Parts of these findings were presented at the 15th Congress of the European Chemoreception Research Organization in Erlangen (2002), at the 43rd Congress of the German Society of Psychology in Berlin (2002), and at the at the 9th Meeting of the International Neurotoxicology Association in Dresden (2003).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sucker, K., Both, R., Bischoff, M. et al. Odor frequency and odor annoyance Part II: dose–response associations and their modification by hedonic tone. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 81, 683–694 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-007-0262-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-007-0262-4