Comparison of Ambient Odor Assessment Techniques in a Controlled Environment

dc.contributor.author Henry, Christopher
dc.contributor.author Schulte, Dennis
dc.contributor.author Hoff, Steven
dc.contributor.author Hoff, Steven
dc.contributor.author Jacobson, Larry
dc.contributor.author Parkhurst, Ann
dc.contributor.department Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering
dc.date 2018-02-13T10:13:00.000
dc.date.accessioned 2020-06-29T22:33:19Z
dc.date.available 2020-06-29T22:33:19Z
dc.date.copyright Fri Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 2010
dc.date.embargo 2013-04-30
dc.date.issued 2010-09-13
dc.description.abstract <p>This paper compares results of using - dynamic triangular forced-choice olfactometry (DTFCO), Mask Scentometers, Nasal Rangers®, and an odor intensity reference scale (OIRS) –intensity ratings - to assess odors in a controlled-environment chamber in the Iowa State University Air Dispersion Laboratory. The methods were used to assess thirteen odor levels in the chamber where swine manure mixed with water was used to vary the odor levels. Dynamic triangular forced-choice olfactometry did not correlate well to the other ambient odor assessment methods. Predicting D/T using intensity ratings degraded Ro2 with the other methods in all cases. Average Intensity-predicted D/T, the Mask Scentometer and the Nasal Ranger® correlated well with each other, had strong Ro2 (greater than 0.85), had regression slopes nearest one, and the session means were not found to be significantly different (a=0.05). Using the geometric means of the device D/T settings, (D/T)G, improved Ro2 between the other methods and the Nasal Ranger® and Mask Scentometer. Average Intensity-predicted D/T values were three to four times higher than Nasal Ranger® assessment ((D/T)G and D/T, respectively), and a Nasal Ranger® (D/T)G was roughly five times higher than Mask Scentometer (D/T)G.</p>
dc.description.comments <p>This proceeding is from: International Symposium on Air Quality and Manure Management for Agriculture Conference Proceedings, 13-16 September 2010, Dallas, Texas <a href="http://elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp?aid=32644&t=3&dabs=Y&redir=&redirType=" target="_blank">711P0510cd</a>.</p>
dc.identifier archive/lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_conf/307/
dc.identifier.articleid 1301
dc.identifier.contextkey 4089577
dc.identifier.s3bucket isulib-bepress-aws-west
dc.identifier.submissionpath abe_eng_conf/307
dc.identifier.uri https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/handle/20.500.12876/325
dc.language.iso en
dc.source.bitstream archive/lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_conf/307/2010_HenryCG_ComparisonAmbientOdor.pdf|||Fri Jan 14 23:29:15 UTC 2022
dc.subject.disciplines Agriculture
dc.subject.disciplines Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering
dc.subject.keywords Mask Scentometer
dc.subject.keywords Nasal Ranger®
dc.subject.keywords odor intensity
dc.subject.keywords Dynamic triangular forced choice olfactometry
dc.subject.keywords ambient odor assessment
dc.title Comparison of Ambient Odor Assessment Techniques in a Controlled Environment
dc.type article
dc.type.genre conference
dspace.entity.type Publication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication 98b46d48-66a2-4458-9b42-8c4aa050664d
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication 8eb24241-0d92-4baf-ae75-08f716d30801
File
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
2010_HenryCG_ComparisonAmbientOdor.pdf
Size:
207.6 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: