Chapter 4

Environmental Odor Pollution:

A Complex GC–MS,
Olfactometry and Diffusion
Modeling Approach to Define
Air Quality
Giancarlo Bianchi*, Marinella Palmiotto*, Michele Giavini{
and Enrico Davoli*
*
Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, Environmental Health Sciences Department, IRCCS Istituto di
Ricerche Farmacologiche “Mario Negri”, Milano, Italy
{
ARS Ambiente, Analysis, Research and Services for the Environment, Gallarate, Italy

Chapter Outline
1. Environmental Odor 2.5. Chemometric Analysis 101
Pollution 97 3. Results for VOCs 102
2. Analytical Methods 99 4. Case Studies: Landfills and
2.1. Air Sampling 99 Composting Plants 107
2.2. Instrumental Analysis 99 5. Conclusions 113
2.3. Olfactometry 100 References 113
2.4. Diffusion Modeling 101

1 ENVIRONMENTAL ODOR POLLUTION

Odor, aroma, scent: Webster’s thesaurus lists these terms as synonyms, but each
of them has a completely different world behind it, implying different research
goals and approaches. The environmental harassment that odors can cause is
attracting widespread interest, and an objective/universal technology is needed
to describe air quality and odors, particularly for industrial activities. The effect
of odors on humans is primarily one of nuisance; however, the effects can be
more problematic [1–4]. Odors can trigger nausea, headaches, and loss of

Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-62623-3.00004-6

© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 97
98 PART I Advances in GC–MS and GC–MS–MS. Environmental Applications

appetite; disturb sleep patterns [5,6]; cause emotional disturbance, mental

depression, and irritability, if persistent; interfere with proper working condi-
tions; and may cause a depreciation in property values [7–9]. Besides odors’
annoying impacts, which may limit some human activities, the perception of
odors, especially from industrial activities, is more and more often associated
with people’s fear of possible health effects [10,11].
The perception of odors by humans is not completely understood because
of the complex series of chemical and neurological interactions that take place
in the human olfactory system. The response to an odor may provoke an emo-
tional response [12] as well as draw on an individual’s past experience [2],
which may be associated with that particular odor. The nature of the odor itself
may also cloud an individual’s natural detection ability. The chemical compo-
sition, predominant weather conditions, and the originating source of an odor
may all act in some fashion to muddle an individual’s perception of the odor.
Some odorous compounds can exist and exhibit their effects at concentra-
tions in the parts per billion (ppb) range or lower [4]. The human olfactory
system, in some instances, is able to detect these compounds even at this
low concentration. There are analytical methods for determining the presence
of these particular odor-causing agents; however, an analytical means to
determine an individual’s annoyance with a particular odor does not exist.
An individual’s judgment of the existence of an odorous agent is affected
by the following variables:
l natural sensitivity
l age
l sex
l eating, drinking, and smoking habits
l prejudices against the source
l personal experience
l health problems
l pregnancy
l medications
l education
Humans remain the primary instrument in determining the existence of an odor
problem. For this reason, the European Commission [13–15] stated that
odor concentration can be determined, at least as of now, only by dynamic
olfactometry. EN13725:2003 Guidelines were published in order to standardize
the methodology within the Member States.
The existence and verification of an odor are complex, and analytical
approaches are needed [16] to describe the environment, to characterize,
among volatile organic compounds (VOCs), not only odorants that are respon-
sible for the odor [17,18], but also other compounds, especially hazardous and
potentially toxic compounds, such as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). In this
way, it is possible to describe environmental air quality in terms of both odor-
ants [19] and possible health risks [14,20] for exposed populations.
Chapter 4 Environmental Odor Pollution 99

A complex approach is presented that is used to solve complex environmen-

tal odor pollution cases. Environmental odor pollution assessment is defined by
dispersion modeling of sampled odor emissions, after measuring the odor con-
centration by dynamic olfactometry. The same odor emissions are chemically
characterized by full scan, low resolution, mass spectrometry with a sample
preparation based on solid phase microextraction (SPME). With a good knowl-
edge of the single VOCs present and their individual concentrations, it is possible
to use advanced multivariate statistical approaches, such as principal compo-
nents analysis (PCA) or a cluster analysis (CA), to describe sample similarities
as an aid to assess the most representative odor emissions’ sources in specific
environments and, possibly, individual-specific markers of malodor sources.

2 ANALYTICAL METHODS
2.1 Air Sampling
Emission and environmental air sampling are performed following EN
13725:2003 guidelines, with NalophanTM bags (Tillmanns S.p.A., Italy) and
a short PTFE inlet tube. Briefly, a battery-operated pump is used to evacuate
a container, which allows the initially deflated bags to inflate (lung principle).
As mentioned earlier, odorants and VOCs in ambient samples are usually present
in traces, and it is very easy to alter their presence. In this way, the air sample does
not come in contact with pump parts that might ruin sample integrity by both
adsorption processes (with loss of some compounds) and pump material contami-
nation (with sample contamination). In the bag, an isotopically labeled internal
standard is added in order to increase the analytical accuracy during sample stor-
age. Different samples are collected to accurately describe different odor emissions
and ambient air, usually at the receptors’ site, possibly during odor pollution epi-
sodes. Bags with sample are therefore shipped to the laboratory and analyzed
[16] within 30 h as recommended by the EN method. Sampling strategy, number
of samples, point location, time, etc. follows EN 13725 guidelines, while proce-
dures used for area sources are based on a wind tunnel approach [21–23].
Nalophan bags were extracted in the lab with an SPME preconcentration
[24,25] with a divinylbenzene/carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane, 50–30 mm
fiber (Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA), preconditioned for 3 h at 250
C. The
analytes were adsorbed from the air samples by exposing the fiber [26,27]
to the air samples in the bags for 30 min at room temperature (Figure 1).

2.2 Instrumental Analysis

The SPME fiber was used to inject on an Agilent 5975C Series GC/MSD.
Volatiles were separated using a 60 m  0.32 mm ID capillary column (CP
7415, Varian Inc., Lake Forest, CA, USA) with a film thickness of 1.80 mm.
The carrier gas was helium at a flow rate of 1 ml/min. VOCs were desorbed
exposing the fiber in the GC injection port for 5 min at 250
C. A 2-mm glass
liner was used, and the injector was set in splitless mode for 1 min. The oven
100 PART I Advances in GC–MS and GC–MS–MS. Environmental Applications

FIGURE 1 Sampling of a Nalophan bag with an SPME device in the laboratory. The SPME
fiber is exposed to the airborne sample for 30 min at room temperature. An internal standard,
either deuterated xylene used for semiquantitative profiling of odorants or a mixture of selected
isotopically labeled compounds for quantitative analysis, is added to the sample.

temperature program was isothermal for 3 min at 35
C, then raised to 200
C

at the rate of 8
C/min. The transfer line to the MS was maintained at 250
C.
The mass spectra were obtained by electronic impact at 70 eV and collecting
full scan data, in a mass range of 33–300 m/z. Compounds were identified by
comparing their mass spectra with those contained in the NIST 98 instrumen-
tal library. The odorants and other VOCs, including HAPs, that are identified
by the library software, were confirmed by an expert review and, where nec-
essary, by pure standard comparison. Quantitative analysis on specific com-
pounds is performed by using calibration curves with isotopically labeled
analogues. Semiquantitative analysis for all the identified and unknown com-
pounds was performed by direct comparison with the internal standard.
Results were expressed as part per billion on a volume basis (ppbv).

2.3 Olfactometry
In dynamic olfactometry, diluted odorous air is presented to a panel of evalua-
tors through a sniffing port, in order to define odor concentration. Results are
Chapter 4 Environmental Odor Pollution 101

expressed as European Odor Units (OUE) corresponding to the numerical

value of the odor concentration, equal to the dilution factor that is necessary
to reach the odor threshold of a specific sample. If a sample, diluted 1000
times, is detected by 50% of the test panel, its odor concentration will be
1000 OUE, higher, for example, than a sample that needs a 100 times dilution
to be detected. All analyses are performed in collaboration with external
olfactometric laboratories, working under EN 13725 guidelines.

2.4 Diffusion Modeling

Pollutants and odor concentrations at receptors are estimated using American
Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model
(AMS/EPA Regulatory Model, AERMOD), a steady-state, plume atmospheric
dispersion model developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency.
It consists of two input data processors: a meteorological data preprocessor
(AERMOD meteorological preprocessor, AERMET) that incorporates air dis-
persion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling
concepts, and a terrain data preprocessor (AERMOD terrain preprocessor,
AERMAP) that incorporates complex terrain using U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) Digital Elevation Data.
This model is used to predict the concentration under any weather condi-
tion from different types of sources (diffusive and punctual) and across differ-
ent terrain conditions including receptor location. Site-specific inputs for the
model were elaborated using meteorological and terrain data, to estimate pol-
lutant and odor concentrations in air, and pollutant soil depositions in corre-
spondence to the sensitive receptors identified in the specific environment.
Calpuff, developed by California Air Resources Board (CARB), is often
used as an alternative model, especially in areas where calm wind conditions
are important [28].

2.5 Chemometric Analysis

Data elaboration is carried out using multivariate statistics, in particular PCA
and CA. The former technique allows to reduce the number of variables
which characterizes a set of data in a small number of components (principal
components), which are linear combinations of the original variables, orthog-
onal among them and ordered on the basis of the variance they subtract to the
system. The first two components describing most of the system variability
may be represented as orthogonal axes, and samples may be projected in a
bidimensional space. The latter technique easily provides a classification into
groups of objects characterized by similar properties. In this approach, it has
been used as a hierarchical clustering based on Euclidian distance.
An overall flowchart for this approach is presented in Figure 2.
102 PART I Advances in GC–MS and GC–MS–MS. Environmental Applications

SPME GC/MS
High sensitivity, high specificity

Odour threshold values:

7000 compounds in
database

Odorous compounds identification Identification of process

odorous markers

Multivariate statistics (PCA,

cluster analysis) to highlight Determination of odour
patterns of compounds abatement technologies

Odour dispersion modeling

Characterization and on-site

monitoring of odorous compounds

FIGURE 2 Flowchart for this approach is reported.

3 RESULTS FOR VOCs

Instrumental sensitivity allows analysis of VOC components generally well
below 1 ppbv [29,30] working in full scan. When sensitivity is an issue, the
MS can be used in selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode. In Figure 3, a SIM
chromatogram is presented showing the results obtained after sampling a
Nalophan bag with 65 ppt of dimethyl disulfide. A blank sample is overlaid
in the same chromatogram.
Linearity also is good down to the low ppb region for several VOCs. In
Figure 4, data are reported from a mixture of odorants and HAPs calculated
versus the internal standard, perdeuterated p-xylene. Some adsorption effects
can be noticed in the more polar compound, hexanoic acid, where there is a
lack of linearity for low concentration standards, while all other compounds
show good linearity. The dynamic range also is wide, and it has shown line-
arity for high concentration samples in the range of 1–100 ppm [30].
A different response factor is observed for different compounds, given that
this is a well-known and commonly reported factor in SPME [31]. For this
reason, the approach has to be considered semiquantitative unless homologous
internal standards are used. However, precision is still good. In Table 1,
results are reported from triplicate analysis of the same mixture, showing
Chapter 4 Environmental Odor Pollution 103

FIGURE 3 Sensitivity. SIM chromatogram is reported showing results obtained after sampling a
Nalophan bag with 65 ppt of dimethyl disulfide. A blank sample is superimposed.

relative standard deviation (RSD) values generally around 20% for all com-
pounds at all levels. Ions monitored for these compounds are listed in Table 2.
Analysis of polar compounds is possible and reveals, for example, oxyge-
nated odorants in a composting plant emission and scrubber’s effects in
removing volatile fatty acids and esters (Figure 5). Air sample before the
scrubber has a significant higher concentration of volatile fatty acids com-
pared to the sample after the treatment. This abatement is not observed with
esters that are not efficiently removed in this case.
104 PART I Advances in GC–MS and GC–MS–MS. Environmental Applications

Propanoic acid Dimethyl disulfide 2- Hexanone

0.035 0.08 0.18

0.03 0.07 0.16

0.06 0.14
0.025
0.12
0.05
0.02 0.1
0.04
0.015 0.08
0.03 0.06
0.01
0.02 0.04
0.005 0.01 0.02
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50

Hexanoic acid a-Terpinene D-Limonene

0.3 0.7 3.5

0.25 0.6 3

0.5 2.5
0.2
0.4 2
0.15
0.3 1.5
0.1
0.2 1
0.05 0.1 0.5

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60 0 200 400 600

Hexanal Butanoic acid ethyl ester Ethene tetrachloro

0.025 0.04 0.05

0.035 0.045
0.02 0.04
0.03
0.035
0.015 0.025 0.03
0.02 0.025
0.01 0.015 0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005 0.01
0.005 0.005
0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60

Butanoic acid 1-Hexanol Hexanoic acid. ethyl ester

0.25 0.25 0.12

0.2 0.2 0.1

0.08
0.15 0.15
0.06
0.1 0.1
0.04
0.05 0.05
0.02

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40

FIGURE 4 Linearity. Results in the low ppb region for several VOCs are presented for a mixture
of odorants and HAPs calculated versus the internal standard, perdeuterated p-xylene.
TABLE 1 Quantitative Analysis of Odorants in an Air Sample at Low ppb Levels

Calibration Level 1 Calibration Level 2 Calibration Level 3 Calibration Level 4

Compounds ppb Mean RSD (%) ppb Mean RSD (%) ppb Mean RSD (%) ppb Mean RSD (%)
Propanoic acid 5 0.0017 19 20 0.0070 22 40 0.0123 10 80 0.0312 3

Dimethyl disulfide 4 0.0028 6 16.2 0.0166 25 32.4 0.0335 10 64.7 0.0688 2

2-Hexanone 3 0.0128 3 11.8 0.0466 19 23.6 0.0847 9 47.2 0.1528 3
Hexanal 2.8 0.0018 9 11.3 0.0064 20 22.5 0.0103 10 45.1 0.0210 3
Butanoic acid, ethyl 2.8 0.0036 3 11 0.0134 18 22 0.0231 10 44 0.0370 8
ester
Ethene, tetrachloro 3.5 0.0034 5 13.9 0.0125 19 27.8 0.0236 9 55.7 0.0430 4
Butanoic acid 3.9 0.0078 20 15.5 0.0374 22 31.1 0.0830 4 62.2 0.2189 4
1-Hexanol 2.8 0.0130 6 11 0.0546 22 22 0.1081 8 44.1 0.2312 4
Hexanoic acid, ethyl 2.3 0.0104 7 9 0.0357 18 18.1 0.0630 7 36.2 0.1094 7
ester
Hexanoic acid 2.8 0.0041 51 11 0.0226 26 22.1 0.0630 5 44.2 0.2510 8
a-Terpinene 3.5 0.0382 4 13.9 0.1490 21 27.8 0.2968 7 55.6 0.6069 1

D-Limonene 24.7 0.2131 6 98.8 0.7718 19 202.6 1.4710 9 494.2 2.8945 5

SPME must be considered semiquantitative, unless homologous internal standards are used. Here, results are reported from triplicate analysis of the same mixture in air
samples, showing RSD values generally around 20% for all compounds at all levels.
106 PART I Advances in GC–MS and GC–MS–MS. Environmental Applications

TABLE 2 Ions Monitored for the Quantitative Analysis

Compound m/z
Propanoic acid 73

Dimethyl disulfide 94
2-Hexanone 43
Hexanal 56
Butanoic acid, ethyl ester 88
Ethene, tetrachloro 166
Butanoic acid 60

p-Xylene d10 (internal standard) 98

1-Hexanol 56
Hexanoic acid, ethyl ester 88
Hexanoic acid 60
a-Terpinene 93
D-Limonene 93

Abundance lon 60.00 (59.70 – 60.70): CXPDMS3.D

lon 60.00 (59.70 – 60.70): CXPDMS1.D
140,000
130,000
120,000 Ethyl Hexanoic
hexanoate acid
110,000
100,000
90,000
Before
80,000
After
70,000 Butyric
60,000 Acetic acid acid
Valeric
50,000
acid
40,000
30,000 Ethyl
20,000 butyrate

10,000
0
Time 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00
FIGURE 5 Odor abatement technologies can be compound-dependent and are characterized. For
example, analysis of polar compounds reveals oxygenated odorants in a composting plant emis-
sion and scrubber’s effects in removing volatile fatty acids and esters.
Chapter 4 Environmental Odor Pollution 107

4 CASE STUDIES: LANDFILLS AND COMPOSTING PLANTS

In Figures 6 and 7, PCA results are presented from three different studies, per-
formed on different environmental odor pollution cases, revealing different
possible local odor sources. In Figure 6, a composting plant has very well-
defined emissions from both the biofilter and diffusive emissions coming
from biofilter emissions and compost curing areas (represented as B and C
clusters in the figure, respectively), but they show no similarities with ambient
air (represented as cluster A) during an odor pollution episode. In the score
plots reported (where the transformed variable values corresponding to a par-
ticular data point are plotted), the ellipsoids group similar samples, suggesting
a similarity among them. On the contrary, samples that are distant in this
space are less similar. Figure 7 shows an odor pollution problem close to a
composting plant. Emissions from curing compost piles (represented as B),
the biooxidation area (represented as C), and the biofilter (represented as A)
are very well separated in the PCA plot. In this case, ambient air samples,
collected during an odor episode, are plotted inside the biofilter ellipsoid as
being similar to this emission, identifying this emission as a possible source
of ambient air odor pollution.
In Figure 8, results are reported from modeling of odor dispersions, with a
non-steady-state Lagrangian model (Calpuff), from an animal odor source
(laying hens’ facility), with residents’ complaints superimposed (black dots),
in terms of odor units concentration per cubic meter. Data are reported in

A PCA case scores

1.3
2a
1.1
3a
1a
4a 0.8 C
0.5
B C5
0.3 C12
Axis 2

C10
C22
C22 C1 C13
8a 7a C14 C15
–1.3 –1.1 –0.8 –0.5 –0.3 C18-0.3
C19 C2 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.3
C9
C1 C4
6a –0.3 C3
5a
–0.5

–0.8

–1.1

–1.3

Axis 1
FIGURE 6 Principal component analysis (PCA) score plot for emissions ((B) biofilter emissions
and (C) compost curing area) and ambient air sample (A) in a composting plant environment.
Here, no similarities to ambient air are observed during an odor pollution episode.
108 PART I Advances in GC–MS and GC–MS–MS. Environmental Applications

2.1
Inlet moisture system C
Inlet biofilter

1.6
Inlet biooxidation

1.0

B
0.5 blowers
Axis 2

Blofilter out A
Blofilter out B
Blofilter out C
A
Curing 2 days blowers on
Blofilter out D
–2.8 –2.6 –1.6 –1.0 –0.5 0.5 1.0 1.6 2.1
Curing 2 days Curing 14 days
–0.5
Ambient air A
Ambient air B

–1.0

–1.6
Cured material

–2.1

–2.6
Ambient air
Axis 1
FIGURE 7 Principal component analysis (PCA) score plot shows an odor pollution problem
close to a composting plant. Emissions from the biofilter (A), curing compost piles (B), and the
biooxidation area (C) are very well separated in the PCA plot. In this case, ambient air samples
collected during an odor episode are similar to biofilter emissions, identifying this emission as
a possible source of ambient air odor pollution.

FIGURE 8 Results are reported from modeling of odor dispersions using a non-steady-state
Lagrangian model (Calpuff) from an animal odor source. Dots indicate residents’ complaints.
The 98th percentile is reported, with isopleths reporting odor concentration in terms of OUE/m3.
Chapter 4 Environmental Odor Pollution 109

FIGURE 9 Results are reported for odor dispersion around a landfill using an Aeromod diffusion
model, showing a 3D view of odor concentrations in the surrounding environment. The 98th per-
centile is reported, with isopleths reporting odor concentration in terms of OUE/m3.

terms of OUE/m3, as the 98th percentile of hourly values for a year

(C98 ¼ x OUE/m3). The isopleth lines report the limits of the benchmark levels,
as defined by the 2011 UK Environment Agency H4 Odor Management
guidelines, equal to 1.5 OUE/m3. In this case, the isopleths indicate that there
will be an odor concentration of 1.5 OUE/m3 for 2% of the time, on a 1 year,
hourly database, and this will be above the benchmark levels in the H4
guidelines, given this particular odor emission from the facility, indicating
the likelihood of unacceptable odor pollution.
In Figure 9, results are reported for a landfill, using Aeromod software
(Lakes Environmental, Canada), an U.S. EPA regulatory model based on
steady-state Gaussian plume air dispersion, showing a 3D view of odor con-
centrations in the surrounding environment. Again, the 98th percentile is
reported, with the isopleths reporting odor concentration in terms of OUE/m3.
In another example, seven samples were collected 0.6–1 km downwind
from the entrance of a landfill (sample marked 8, Landfill IN), in the recep-
tor’s proximity. Samples 1–4 were marked as “nonodor” by the personnel
involved in sampling, while samples 5–7 were marked as “odor.” In Table 3,
analytical data are reported for the monitoring campaign in the landfill area dur-
ing an odor pollution episode, reporting only compounds found frequently in at
least one of the samples. The simple analysis of air concentration is not infor-
mative about environmental sample similarities to “emission” sample 8. Total
aromatics are higher in samples 8, 7, 6, and 1, but the pattern for samples 5
and 7 is more similar to that of sample 8. Terpenes are present in sample 1,
TABLE 3 Results of Samples from a Monitoring Campaign in a Landfill Area During an Odor Pollution Episode

Sample Code

Compound, ppbv 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Landfill IN

Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Benzene 0.19 1.07 1.03

Toluene 3.74 1.61 4.61 2.97 6.80 2.31 24.89 40.48
Ethyl benzene/1,2-dimethyl benzene 98.54 22.54 21.85 19.75 24.10 116.08 313.04 1113.23
p-Xylene 69.56 15.24 20.26 16.78 26.53 126.43 333.44 1224.48
m-Xylene 36.46 11.54 13.71 14.85 18.26 77.47 169.,89 591.35
1,2,3-Trimethyl benzene 2.23 1.48 2.90 9.48 26.81

1-Ethyl-2-methyl benzene 0.88 0.67 3.77 4.37

1,3,5-Trimethyl benzene 1.91 2.04 2.25 7.03 24.09
Trans-decahydro naphthalene 8.47 17.13 23.07 41.92
Cis-decahydro naphthalene 11.99 25.85 37.04 56.67
Total aromatics 208.30 51.12 66.51 58.90 101.97 365.27 921.65 3123.42
Terpenes

Alpha-pinene 1.13
Cymene 1.26 0.48 5.45 1.33 1.75 6.98

Limonene 0.53 0.36 7.93 3.22 8.84 90.58

Total terpenes 1.79 0.84 14.51 4.55 10.59 97.56
Alcohols

2-Butoxy ethanol 2.15 8.98 15.68 54.46 168.59

Total alcohols 2.15 8.98 15.68 54.46 168.59
Total VOC 210.09 51.97 66.51 61.05 125.46 385.49 986.69 3389.57

Data are reported only for compounds found in most of the samples. Sample numbers 5, 6, and 7 environmental odor were collected when environmental odor was
perceived. Sample 8 was collected inside the landfill area.
112 PART I Advances in GC–MS and GC–MS–MS. Environmental Applications

2 and 5–8, while alcohols are present in samples 4–8 only. Why was odor per-
ceived only in samples 5, 6, and 7? Which are the odorants among these detect-
able compounds that could be used as a marker? If data are analyzed with a CA
(Figure 10), it can be noted that the three samples with environmental odor

FIGURE 10 Cluster analysis (CA) during an odor episode around a landfill. The three samples
with environmental odor (5–7) lie in the same cluster, being different from other samples.

FIGURE 11 Principal component analysis (PCA) on the same sample set of Figure 10 shows
that cluster A, corresponding to odorous samples 5, 6, and 7, is the closest to the sample collected
at the entrance of the landfill, where significant odor was present, indicating a similarity and,
again, a possible identification of the landfill facility as the source of odors. In samples 1–4, clus-
ters B and C, no odor was noticed during sampling operations.
Chapter 4 Environmental Odor Pollution 113

(samples 5–7) lie in the same cluster, being well separated from other samples
(1–4), although none of them cluster with the “Landfill IN” sample. In
Figure 11, PCA analysis on the same sample set shows that, while environmen-
tal samples are all close together, indicating a similarity between one another,
samples in cluster A, corresponding to the samples where odor has been
perceived, are the closest to the “Landfill IN” sample, supporting the fact that
environmental odorants detected in these samples are similar to odorants pres-
ent in the landfill area. While none of the odorants is a specific marker, the
pattern is.

5 CONCLUSIONS
The use of instrumental analysis in conjunction with sensorial and chemo-
metric analysis presents several advantages in this field. First, a chemical
characterization of the emissions is an important tool to detect malfunctions
of specific subprocesses or odor abatement technologies. Second, it gives
important clues regarding the potential toxicity of the emissions and ambient
air during odor pollution episodes. Finally, more objective data could be
acquired for long periods and also automatically [29], once VOC tracers have
been identified. The complementary sensorial evaluation allows dispersion
modeling of odor to be performed, following standardized guidelines. The
proposed approach is relatively simple and requires analytical instrumentation
that is widely available in many laboratories. There is the need to have a dee-
per knowledge of odor characterization from different facilities on a more
uniform level, in order to have a better understanding for regulatory purposes
of ambient air odor concentrations. In Italy, the Regione Lombardia recently
proposed guidelines for odor emissions [32], but ambient air acceptability cri-
teria will be defined only in a new release, after 3 years of ambient air odor
data acquisition and after a reliable odor emission inventory. Odor nuisance
will be controlled by setting emission rates at the emission source. Moreover,
acquiring knowledge of odorants and potentially toxic compounds from
sources of odor emissions is an important step during the authorization proce-
dures involving regulation of odor.

REFERENCES
[1] C. Segala, D. Poizeau, J.M. Mace, Revue d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique 51:
201–214, 2003.
[2] M.A. Smeets, H.N. Schifferstein, S.R. Boelema, G. Lensvelt-Mulders, Chemical Senses 33:
725–734, 2008.
[3] G. De Feo, S. De Gisi, I.D. Williams, Waste Management 33: 974–987, 2013.
[4] C.D. Heaney, S. Wing, R.L. Campbell, D. Caldwell, B. Hopkins, D. Richardson, K. Yeatts,
Environmental Research 111: 847–852, 2011.
[5] G.N. Martin, Psychosomatic Medicine 68: 613–616, 2006.
[6] B. Steinheider, Zentralblatt für Hygiene und Umweltmedizin 202: 101–119, 1999.
114 PART I Advances in GC–MS and GC–MS–MS. Environmental Applications

[7] C.E. Herr, A. zur Nieden, R.H. Bodeker, U. Gieler, T.F. Eikmann, International Journal of
Hygiene and Environmental Health 206: 61–64, 2003.
[8] C.E. Herr, A. Zur Nieden, I. Kopka, T. Rethage, U. Gieler, T.F. Eikmann, N.I. Stilianakis,
International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 212: 27–36, 2009.
[9] S.R. Kirkhorn, Minnesota Medicine 85: 38–43, 2002.
[10] S. Nimmermark, Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine 11: 163–173, 2004.
[11] W.S. Cain, J.E. Cometto-Muniz, Occupational Medicine 10: 133–145, 1995.
[12] W. Winters, S. Devriese, I. Van Diest, B. Nemery, H. Veulemans, P. Eelen, K. Van de
Woestijne, O. Van den Bergh, Psychosomatic Medicine 65: 332–338, 2003.
[13] CEN, EN 13725:2003—Air quality—Determination of odour concentration by dynamic
olfactometry, 2003.
[14] L. Capelli, S. Sironi, R. Del Rosso, G. Bianchi, E. Davoli, Water Science and Technology
66: 1399–1406, 2012.
[15] L. Capelli, S. Sironi, R. Del Rosso, G. Bianchi, E. Davoli, Journal of Environmental Science
and Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering 47:
1113–1122, 2012.
[16] A.P. Van Harreveld, Water Science and Technology 44: 9–15, 2001.
[17] V. Orzi, E. Cadena, G. D’Imporzano, A. Artola, E. Davoli, M. Crivelli, F. Adani, Biore-
source Technology 101: 7330–7337, 2010.
[18] B. Scaglia, V. Orzi, A. Artola, X. Font, E. Davoli, A. Sanchez, F. Adani, Bioresource Tech-
nology 102: 4638–4645, 2011.
[19] Y. Hoshika, T. Imamura, G. Muto, L.J. Van Gemert, J.A. Don, J.I. Walpot, Environmental
Research 61: 78–83, 1993.
[20] E. Davoli, E. Fattore, V. Paiano, A. Colombo, M. Palmiotto, A.N. Rossi, M. Il Grande,
R. Fanelli, Waste Management 30: 1608–1613, 2010.
[21] X. Wang, J. Jiang, R. Kaye, Water Science and Technology 44: 71–77, 2001.
[22] L. Capelli, S. Sironi, R. Del Rosso, P. Centola, Water Science and Technology 59:
1611–1620, 2009.
[23] L. Capelli, S. Sironi, R. Barczak, M. Il Grande, R. Del Rosso, Water Science and Technol-
ogy 66: 1607–1613, 2012.
[24] J. Pawliszyn, Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 488: 73–87, 2001.
[25] J. Pawliszyn, Journal of Chromatographic Science 38: 270–278, 2000.
[26] J. Koziel, M. Jia, J. Pawliszyn, Analytical Chemistry 72: 5178–5186, 2000.
[27] J.A. Koziel, J. Pawliszyn, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (1995) 51:
173–184, 2001.
[28] A.P. Van Harreveld, http://www.olores.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=arti-
cle&id=77%3A are-we-there-yet-achievements-and-challenges-in-management-of-environ-
mental-odours&catid=1%3Acontenido&Itemid=40&lang=en. NOSE 2008 Rome Italy, 2008.
[29] E. Davoli, M.L. Gangai, L. Morselli, D. Tonelli, Chemosphere 51: 357–368, 2003.
[30] J.J. Fang, N. Yang, D.Y. Cen, L.M. Shao, P.J. He, Waste Management 32: 1401–1410, 2012.
[31] K.K. Kleeberg, Y. Liu, M. Jans, M. Schlegelmilch, J. Streese, R. Stegmann, Waste Manage-
ment 25: 872–879, 2005.
[32] Bollettino Ufficiale Regione Lombardia. D.G.R. 16 aprile 2003 – N. 7/12764