Unpleasant odors are a major cause of public complaints concerning air quality and represent a growing social problem in industrialized countries. However, the assessment of odor pollution is still regarded as a difficult task, because olfactory nuisance can be caused by many different chemical compounds, often found in hard-to-detect concentrations, and the perception of odors is influenced by subjective thresholds: moreover, the impact of odor sources on air quality is mediated by complex atmospheric dispersion processes. The development of standardized assessment approaches to odor pollution and proper international regulatory tools are urgently needed. In particular, comparisons of the methodologies commonly used nowadays to assess odor impacts on air quality are required. Here, we assess the olfactory nuisance caused by an anaerobic treatment plant for municipal solid waste by means of two alternative techniques: the field inspection procedure and the atmospheric dispersion model CALPUFF. Our goal was to compare rigorously their estimates of odor nuisance, both qualitatively (spatial extent of odor impact) and quantitatively (intensity of odor nuisance). To define the impact of odors, we referred to the German standards, based on the frequency of odor episodes in terms of odor hours. We report a satisfying, although not perfect agreement between the estimates provided by the two techniques. For example, they assessed similar spatial extents of odor pollution, but different frequencies of odor episodes in locations where the odor nuisance was highest. The comparison highlights strengths and weaknesses for both approaches. CALPUFF is a cheaper methodology which can be used predictively, but fugitive emissions are difficult to model reliably, because of uncertainty regarding timing, location and emission rate. Field inspection takes into account the role of human perception, but unlike the model it does not always characterize precisely the extent of the odor nuisance caused by a single source when other odors are present, because only the most unpleasant odor is reported. We conclude that these two assessment methods provide reasonable estimates of odor nuisance. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
