Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907

www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Odor compounds in waste gas emissions from agricultural

operations and food industries
S. Rappert, R. Müller *

Biotechnology II, Technical University Hamburg-Harburg, Denickestrasse 15, 21071 Hamburg, Germany

Accepted 18 July 2005

Available online 29 August 2005

Abstract

In the last decades, large-scale agricultural operations and food industries have increased. These operations generate numerous
types of odors. The reduction of land areas available for isolation of agricultural and food processing industrial operations from the
public area and the increase in sensitivity and demand of the general public for a clean and pleasant environment have forced all of
these industries to control odor emissions and toxic air pollutants. To develop environmentally sound, sustainable agricultural and
food industrial operations, it is necessary to integrate research that focuses on modern analytical techniques and latest sensory tech-
nology of measurement and evaluation of odor and pollution, together with a fundamental knowledge of factors that are the basic
units contributing to the production of odor and pollutants. Without a clear understanding of what odor is, how to measure it, and
where it originates, it will be difficult to control the odor. The present paper reviews the available information regarding odor emis-
sions from agricultural operations and food industries by giving an overview about odor problems, odor detection and quantifica-
tion, and identifying the sources and the mechanisms that contribute to the odor emissions. Finally, ways of reducing or controlling
the odor problem are discussed.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction number of different countries, states and local regulatory

In the last decades, a number of countries have re-
ported an increase in complaints due to agriculture
and food processing industries related odors (Both,
2001; Philips, 1997; Shukla, 1991; Mahin, 2001). There
are a number of reasons for the increase in complaints
including: (a) the increase in the size and the number
of livestock and food production facilities, (b) the in-
crease in residential development near traditionally agri-
cultural and food industrial areas, and (c) the increase in
sensitivity and demand of the general public for a clean
and pleasant environment (Both, 2001; Mahin, 2001).
These reasons have forced all of these industries to con-
trol odor emissions, as well as toxic air pollutants. A
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 40 428783118; fax: +49 40
428782127.
E-mail address: ru.mueller@tu-harburg.de (R. Müller).
agencies within countries, have struggled with develop-
ing effective odor regulations or guidelines, which both
avoid odor annoyance conditions and are not exces-
sively conservative (Mahin, 2001). Regardless of
whether a state has specific regulations for odor control
or plans to implement such regulations, there are two
basic principles for controlling odors: (1) reduction of
odors at the generation sources, and (2) removal of
odors from collected gaseous streams before the odors
are discharged into the atmosphere. Source control is al-
ways the first choice for odor control. However, removal
of odors from the discharged ducts or dispensed ventila-
tion air is necessary to control the odor problems. The
process of odor control generally starts with source
characterization, which means: (1) identifying the
sources emitting odorous compounds; (2) measuring
the odor fluxes and ranking the sources according to this
parameter in order to define treatment priorities; and (3)

0956-053X/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2005.07.008
888 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
identifying the type of odorous compounds in order to
select the best-suited odor abatement technology (Ramel
and Nomine, 2000; Shukla, 1991).
The characterization of the sources of odor emissions
is very important and is the first priority for the odor
control process. In order to successfully reduce the prob-
lem of malodor emissions from agricultural and food
processing operations, it is necessary to understand the
process leading to odor nuisance and to have enough
information on the sources of odor emissions from these
operations. This paper reviews the available information
in the literature related to odor emissions from agricul-
tural operations and food industries by giving an over-
view about odor problems, odor detection and
quantification, and identifying the sources and the
mechanisms that contribute to the odorous compound
emissions from agricultural operations and food indus-
tries. Moreover, ways of reducing or controlling the
odor problem are discussed.
2. General considerations: odor problems, detection, and
quantification
Odorants are of many types, but those of the current
topic are foul smelling, malodorous compounds. Odor
problems are typically limited to the neighborhoods of
localized point- and area-sources. Therefore, most of
the population remains unaffected and relatively little re-
search efforts have been put into the study of environ-
mental odors. A quantitative description of
environmental odor exposure is limited both by the
complexity of chemical mixtures and by the sensitivity
of the human nose (Sucker et al., 2001). The human nose
can detect and discriminate odors at concentrations even
lower than those detectable by gas chromatography.
The minimum concentrations required for the detection
of odors are termed odor threshold values (OTV). Gen-
erally, the lowest toxic values (LTV) of these com-
pounds in air are at least a factor of 500 higher than
OTV, and these odors are detected long before their
concentration becomes a health risk (Mackie et al.,
1998; Tamminga, 1992). However, not all volatile com-
pounds occurring in the environment contribute to its
distinctive smell. It was found that odorants with higher
odor activity values (OAV, synonymous with Ôodor unitÕ
and Ôodor valueÕ, the ratio of the concentration of the
odorant in the material to the odor threshold) are fre-
quently correlated to the smell (Grosch, 2001; Rothe
and Thomas, 1963). It is worth noting that a mixture
of odorants may smell differently from the unmixed
compounds and that, in general, pleasantness decreases
as intensity increases (Mackie et al., 1998).
Nuisance odors can have detrimental effects on aes-
thetics, property values, and the quality of life in com-
munities subjected to them. Air pollution control
authorities dealing with odorous emissions from indus-
trial, municipal and agricultural activities are often
faced with many complaints from the public. The pro-
cess leading from odorant formation to individuals filing
a complaint is complex, involving many steps and fac-
tors: odor emissions ! exposure ! receptor population
(perception and appraisal) ! odor annoyance. The rela-
tionship between exposure to ambient stressors, such as
malodor, and effects in a human population is not
straightforward. Odor nuisance can develop after
long-term intermittent exposure to odors that cause a
negative appraisal in the individual concerned. The
mechanism that leads from the emission of odorants
into the atmosphere to actual odor nuisance is quite
complex and involves many factors, for example: (a)
the characteristics of the odor that is released [detect-
ability, intensity, hedonic tone (pleasant and unpleas-
ant), annoyance potential] (Shukla, 1991; Van
Harreveld, 2001); (b) variable dilution in the atmosphere
through turbulent dispersion (turbulence or stability of
boundary layer, wind direction, wind speed, etc.); (c)
exposure of the receptors in the population (location
of residence, movement of people, time spent outdoors,
etc.); (d) context of perception (i.e., other odors, back-
ground of odors, activity and state of mind within the
perception context); and (e) receptor characteristics
(exposure history, association with risks, activity during
exposure episodes, psychological factors such as coping
behavior, perceived health and perceived threats to
health) (Van Harreveld, 2001).
Odor nuisance is generally defined by the ‘‘FIDO’’
factors: frequency, intensity, duration, and offensive-
ness. Frequency refers to the number of times an odor
occurs; intensity refers to the strength of an odor; dura-
tion refers to the period of time an odor is encountered;
and offensiveness refers to the character or hedonic tone
of the odor (how pleasant or unpleasant it is) (OÕNeill
and Phillips, 1992; NPPC, 1995; Schulte, 1997; Mackie
et al., 1998). Odor intensity has received the most atten-
tion in quantification of odor nuisance problems. Since
odor intensity is considered as the primary variable, a
variety of direct and indirect methods have been devel-
oped for measuring odor intensity.
Direct methods, also referred as sensory or olfacto-
metric methods, involve the use of the human nose as
a detector, generally in the form of a panel of trained
observers. Direct methods can be divided into two major
categories: scaling, and dilution. Scaling involves rating
the odor intensity on an arbitrary scale (using a rating
scale such as none at all, very weak, weak, moderate
weak, moderate, moderate strong, strong, very strong,
or maximal for irritation intensity and pleasantness) or
referencing the odor intensity to the intensity of a
known substance. The reference compound that is most
widely used is n-butanol. The dilution method is more
objective than the scaling method and involves diluting
 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
the sample with a stream of odor-free air in order to
determine the odor threshold detectability. Another
method of odor sensing, which employs the human nose,
is called scentometry. A scentometer is a hand-held de-
vice that allows odors to be evaluated on site. The prin-
ciple of the operation is similar to the dilution method of
the olfactometer. Varying proportions of ambient (odor-
ous) air, drawn through an activated carbon filter (odor-
free air), are introduced to an individualÕs nose. The
ratio of ambient air to filtered air at which an individual
detects an odor becomes the dilution-to-threshold. Odor
inspectors using this method require training and expe-
rience so they can develop confidence in its application.
The advantages of scentometry are that it is economi-
cally attractive and readings are taken on site. Disad-
vantages include odor fatigue because it is difficult not
to expose the sniffer to the ambient environment (which
is often odorous) before the scentometer is used, lack of
dilution options, and inability to rate sniffers against
their ability to sense a known reference concentration.
Because this test is conducted on site, some concern
has been expressed regarding the ability of the sniffers
to remain objective when they are seeing sources of odor
emissions. Nevertheless, dilution olfactometer and scen-
tometer are probably the most common types of instru-
ments in use for measuring odor intensity for research
purposes. However, there are a number of limitations
to the use of sensory methods for measuring odor inten-
sity. These include rapid saturation of olfactory senses
by some odorants, individual variation in sensitivity to
different odors, fatigue as a result of adaptation, and
changes in climatic variables (temperature, humidity,
and wind speed) when measuring odors under field con-
ditions, as well as effects of age, gender, health and per-
sonal habits on the sense of smell of individual panelists
(Mackie et al., 1998).
Many techniques for determining the concentration
of individual or key groups of odor components using
instrumental or indirect methods have been developed.
However, it is important to match chemical concentra-
tions with olfactometric measurements. Gas chromatog-
raphy (GC) is the technique most commonly applied to
separate and identify volatile and gaseous samples. This
method provides the accurate concentration of specific
compounds in a sample and can be used on-site and
for continuous assessment. There are specific detectors
for the GC that is sensitive to certain types of com-
pounds. If these types of compounds are unknown or
their mixture is complicated, then a mass spectrometric
detector and an electronic library of compounds are nec-
essary. The GC–MS holds promise as a basic research
tool for odor analysis; however, it is an expensive and
sophisticated analytical approach, which is usually re-
served for research rather than routine monitoring.
Also, the concentration of chemicals observed using
GC–MS does not correlate well with the dilution levels
889
required for detection of odor by a human panel using
olfactometry. In other words, the GC–MS does not pro-
vide total olfactive perception (Powers et al., 2000; Stu-
etz and Nicolas, 2001). Suitable instruments that
incorporate sensitivity and identification, together with
a rapid, portable means of measuring odor concentra-
tion in air, are actively being developed for portable
measurements in the field for abatement and control
methods. The photoionization detector (PID), a hand-
held device, responds to compounds with a photoioniza-
tion potential equal to or less than that of the energy
source (lamp). Energy of 10.2 eV from the lamp will ex-
clude direct detection of major compounds in air such as
water vapor, CH4 and CO2 but will detect volatile or-
ganic compounds as well as NH3 and H2S. Although,
the sensitivity of PID is low compared to olfactometry
methods, it has the potential for measuring odor con-
centration from animal wastes and emissions (Mackie
et al., 1998). The infrared photoacoustic detector
(IPD) is one of the Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR)
spectroscopy detectors suitable for photoacoustic mea-
surement of the absorption of infrared light from gas
sample (Osada and Fukumoto, 2001). The IPD data
tend to overestimate the concentrations of CH4 and
N2O in the samples under high concentrations of CO2
or high humidity (Osada et al., 2000).
The current methods, such as GC–MS analysis, PID,
and IPD, etc., provide an accurate description of chem-
ical compositions of gases, but tell us very little about
the perceived effect, whereas olfactometry gives the ac-
tual human response but is very subjective and expen-
sive. The use of non-specific sensor arrays may offer
an objective and on-line instrument for assessing olfac-
tive annoyance. There has been a great deal of recent re-
search devoted to the development of sensor array
technology so called ‘‘electronic nose (EN) systems’’
for odor detection and measurement. An EN is defined
as an instrument that consists of an array of electronic
chemical sensors with partial specificity and an appro-
priate pattern-recognition system capable of recognizing
simple and complex odors (Mackie et al., 1998). The
sensor array systems can discriminate between different
odor sources (wastewater, livestock, and landfill). The
response patterns from these sources can be significantly
different and the intensity of sensor responses is propor-
tional to the concentration of the volatile compounds.
The correlation of the sensors response against odor
strengths shows that reasonable fits can be obtained
for a range of odor concentrations between 100 and
800,000 ou/m3. However, the influence of environmental
fluctuations (humidity and temperature) on sensor base-
lines and sensor sensitivity still remains an obstacle, as
well as the need for periodic calibrations of the sensor
system and the choice of a suitable gas for different envi-
ronmental odors (Stuetz and Nicolas, 2001). Therefore,
before the applications of EN can become a reality, the
890 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
above problems need to be overcome and the validation
of the quantitative assessment of sensor array responses
against olfactometry measurements to allow compari-
sons with human perception need to be improved.
3. Sources of odors associated with agricultural operations
The practice of intensive livestock farming and the
problems associated with the treatment and disposal of
waste have raised public awareness of agricultural malo-
dors as environmental pollutants (Jones, 1977; Shus-
terman, 1992; Persaud et al., 1996). Such odors may
be released from ventilation systems in the buildings,
waste storage and slurry treatment systems of the live-
stock operations. Moreover, malodors emanating from
the spreading of manure and biosolids, as fertilizers,
on agricultural land are an increasing source of the envi-
ronmental pollution (OÕNeill and Phillips, 1991; Persaud
et al., 1996). Hardwick (1985) showed that approxi-
mately 50% of all the odor complaints associated with
agriculture were as a result of the land application of
waste, with the remaining complaints split 20% to waste
storage and 30% to the production buildings. Odors
associated with livestock operations and the application
of biosolids and manure to soil are described in Sections
3.1 and 3.2, respectively.
3.1. Odor from livestock operations
Complaints about livestock odors have increased
with growth in the number of large livestock operations,
especially swine operations, and an increase in the con-
centration of animals in small geographic areas. There
are three primary sources of odor from livestock opera-
tions: (1) livestock facilities (animals housing facilities
and the animals contained within, feed storage facili-
ties); (2) manure storage structures; and (3) application
of livestock manure to agricultural land (see in Section
4) (Powers, 1999). The disposal of dead animals, if it is
not accorded with a high level of management attention,
has the potential to produce an odor that is highly offen-
sive and suggestive of unhealthy conditions. Therefore,
options include prompt removal of the dead animals
to a rendering plant, burial, or composting as required
(Miner, 1999). The intensity of the odor from animal
housing waste air increases from cattle through hens
to pigs; it is also further affected by the type of housing,
the age of the animals and the purpose for which they
are being kept (Hartung, 1992). In general, feed and
body odors are not regarded as offensive, but those gen-
erated from manure and its decomposition during
collection, handling, storage, and spreading are consid-
ered offensive (Edeogu et al., 2001; Lau et al., 2003).
Manure is a complex mixture of undigested dietary res-
idues, endogenous secretions, bacterial cells, and their
metabolic intermediates and end products. Microbial
activities are considered to be responsible for the mal-
odor generation from the stored manure. Odor emitted
from manure is primarily a result of an incomplete
anaerobic degradation of the organic matter, especially
proteins and carbohydrates (Sturaro et al., 1991; Mackie
et al., 1998; Sutton et al., 1999; Zhu, 2000; Sunesson
et al., 2001; Nahm, 2002). This incomplete degradation
results in the production of offensive odorous com-
pounds that can be divided into four different chemical
classes: (1) volatile fatty acids (VFAs, i.e., branched-
and straight chain VFAs), (2) aromatic compounds
(i.e., indoles and phenols), (3) nitrogen-containing com-
pounds (i.e., ammonia and volatile amines), and (4) sul-
fur-containing compounds (i.e., hydrogen sulfide and
mercaptans) (Mackie, 1994; Persaud et al., 1996; Zhu,
2000; Varel and Miller, 2001; Whitehead and Cotta,
2004). Many of the compounds formed by the break-
down of manure have a low odor threshold, therefore
they are perceived as odor nuisances even when their
concentrations in the air are very low (Persaud et al.,
1996; Sunesson et al., 2001). Generation of odors is a
complex process that involves many bacterial species.
The understanding of the basic microbiology in manure
is importance for the effective prevention and control
odor from animal wastes (Zhu, 2000). The mechanisms
in microbiology and biochemistry of producing key
odorous components in manure are summarized in the
following section.
3.1.1. Microbial production of key odors in manure
3.1.1.1. Volatile fatty acids. Zahn et al. (1997) reported
that the volatile organic acids with carbon numbers
from 2 to 9 show the highest potential for the manure
odor. However, VFAs with long carbon chains (C4–
C9, such as butyric, valeric, caproic, and caprylic acids)
and branching (such as iso-butyric, iso-valeric, iso-ca-
proic, and iso-caprylic acids) have more offensive odor
than those with short carbon chains (such as formic,
acetic, and propionic acids) (Mackie, 1994; Zhu et al.,
1999). Therefore, the high concentration of VFAs in
the manure may not necessarily cause high intensity of
malodor as a large portion of the VFAs could be com-
posed of short chain acids with less odor potential
(Zhu, 2000). It is assumed that microbial decomposition
of carbohydrates and proteins (the major source) under
anaerobic conditions resulted in the production of or-
ganic compounds, including VFAs. The production of
VFAs begins in the gastrointestinal tract of pigs by
microbial oxidation, reduction, and fermentation. VFAs
are normally produced as metabolic intermediates or
end products from a range of different bacteria. Bacte-
rial genera involved in the VFAs production, including
Eubacteria, Peptostreptococcus, Bacteroides, Streptococ-
cus, Escherichia, Megasphaera, Propionibacterium, Lac-
tobacilli, and Clostridium. Among them, Eubacterium
 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907 891

and Clostridium are most likely the major contributors
to the odorous volatile fatty acids (Zhu, 2000).
In carbohydrate catabolism, sugars are converted
into pyruvate via glycolysis pathway and under anaero-
bic conditions pyruvate will then go through different
fermentation processes and serve as the substrate in
the subsequent reactions in which various kinds of
VFAs are generated. The sugar metabolism under
anaerobic conditions is represented by the following
equation (Miller and Wolin, 1979):
34:5C6 H12 O6 ! 64VFA þ 23:75CH4 þ 34:25CO2
þ 10:5H2 O
Sugar fermentation usually yields short and straight
chain fatty acids (acetic, propionic, lactic, succinic, for-
mic, and butyric acids). However, in the presence of oxy-
gen, pyruvate is oxidized to acetyl-CoA and then
entered the TCA cycle and the electron transport chain
to produce energy. Because no fermentation process oc-
curs under aerobic conditions, no organic acids, espe-
cially VFAs, are produced. This fact partially explains
why aeration can effectively reduce malodor production
(Zhu et al., 1999).
Protein and amino acids catabolism are the major
sources of microbial VFAs production. The degradation
of proteins not only produce straight chain carboxylic
acids but also branched chain fatty acids, sulfur com-
pounds, amines, ammonia, phenols, and indoles (Spoel-
stra, 1980; Mackie et al., 1998). The first step in amino
acid usage is deamination, the removal of the amino
group from an amino acid. The general mechanism for
oxidative deamination is as follows (Mackie et al., 1998):
NH2
R-CH-COOH + 2H2O→ R-COOH + NH3 + 2H2 + CO2
The fate of deaminated amino acids can be diverse. In
general, they will be converted to pyruvate, acetyl-
CoA, or TCA cycle intermediates and are eventually
oxidized in the TCA cycle to release energy. Since there
are 20 amino acids, the metabolic pathways of decom-
posing these amino acids by different microbes are thus
complex and involve both the synthesis and the degrada-
tion of these essential compounds. Detailed information
of the pathways including fermentation, oxidation, and
reduction for decomposing each individual amino acid
have been published in several papers (Barker, 1981;
Gottschalk, 1985; Cato et al., 1986), and thus will not
be described here. The VFAs derived from deamination
by anaerobic bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract and
animal wastes are summarized in Table 1.
3.1.1.2. Aromatic compounds (indoles and phenols). The
major compounds belonging to this group are indole,

Table 1
VFAs produced from deamination and amines produced from decaboxylation reactions by anaerobic bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract and animal
wastea
Amino acid VFA produced Amine produced
Alanine Acetate, propionate Ethylamine
Asparagine Acetate, lactate Putrescine, pyrrolidine
Aspartic acid Acetate, lactate, propionate Putrescine, pyrrolidine
Cysteine Acetate, propionate, butyrate valerate, formate Putrescine, pyrrolidine, taurine
Glutamic acid Acetate, propionate, butyrate, lactate, formate Propylamine
Phenylalanine Phenylpyruvate, phenyllactate, phenylacetate, Phenylethylamine
phenylpropionate, benzoate
Glycine Acetate Methylamine
Histidine Acetate, butylate, lactate, formate Histamine, propylamine
Isoleucine Isobutyrate, isovalerate, valerate Putrescine, pyrrolidine
Lysine Acetate, butyrate Cadaverine, piperidine
Leucine Isobutyrate, isovalerate, valerate Putrescine, pyrrolidine
Methionine a-ketobutyrate Putrescine, pyrrolidine, taurine
Proline Acetate, valerate, propionate Propylamine, putrescine, pyrrolidine
Glutamine Acetate, butyrate, lactate, formate Propylamine
Arginine Acetate, propionate, valerate Agmatine, propylamine putrescine, pyrrolidine
Serine Acetate, propionate, butyrate, valerate, lactate, Putrescine, pyrrolidine
formate
Threonine Acetate, propionate, butyrate, valerate, formate Putrescine, pyrrolidine
Valine Isobutyrate, isovalerate, valerate Butylamine, putrescine, pyrrolidine
Tryptophan Indolepyruvate, indolelactate, indoleacetate Tryptamine
Tyrosine Phenyl acetate, phenylpropionate, Tyramine
4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate,
4-hydroxyphenyllactate,
4-hydroxyphenylpropionate,
4-hydroxyphenylacetate,
3-hydroxyphenylpropionate, 4-hydroxybezoate
a
Source: Adapted from Scott and Eagleson, 1988; Voet and Voet, 1995; Mackie et al., 1998; Zhu et al., 1999.
892 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
skatole, p-cresol, phenol, and 4-ethylphenol. These com-
pounds are produced via the metabolism of aromatic
amino acids by intestinal anaerobic bacteria, including
members of the genera Bacteroides, Bifidobacterium,
Clostridium, Escherichia, Eubacteria, and Propionibacte-
rium (Mackie et al., 1998; Zhu, 2000). Phenolic com-
pounds such as phenol, p-cresol, 4-ethylphenol, and
phenylpropionate are produced from microbial degra-
dation of tyrosine (Ishaque et al., 1985; Macfarlane
and Macfarlane, 1995; Mackie et al., 1998; Zhu, 2000).
Phenyl acetate and phenyl propionate are produced
from phenylalanine. Metabolism of tryptophan results
in the production of indole and indoleacetate. These
two compounds are subsequently converted into 3-
methylindole (skatole) (Macfarlane and Macfarlane,
1995). A significant further metabolism of these
aromatic compounds only occurs under aerobic condi-
tions or in the presence of an inorganic electron
acceptor.
3.1.1.3. Nitrogen-containing compounds (ammonia and
volatile amines). Production of ammonia from urine and
nitrogenous compounds found in stored manure, in par-
ticular, within a confined facility can create health prob-
lems to both the animals and the human workers
(Whitehead and Cotta, 2004). Furthermore, ammonia
has a direct effect on the trees in the area surrounding
animal housing and is transported long distances though
the air causing eutrophication of water and vegetation
(Hartung, 1992). Total ammonia emissions in terms of
NH3–N from 100 million tonnes of total nitrogen in
the world livestock excreta are estimated to 23 million
tonnes (Watanabe, 1999). Besides being produced dur-
ing deamination of amino acids in manure by anaerobic
bacteria, as stated before, ammonia can be produced
from urea and nitrates (Spoelstra, 1980; Mackie et al.,
1998). Urea is hydrolyzed to ammonia by enzyme urease
from ureolytic bacteria as follows:
NH2
Urease
C = O + 2 H2O → 2 NH4+ + HCO3-.
NH2
Nitrogen in urine is mainly excreted as urea by cattle,
sheep, and swine and as uric acid by poultry. Van Horn
et al. (1996) reported that more than 50% of the nitrogen
from animals could be excreted as urea. Thus urinary
urea is the major source of ammonia in animal manure
and wastes.
Volatile amines (see Table 1) are produced via decar-
boxylation of amino acids in the gastrointestinal tract
and mainly during storage of fresh manure. These pro-
cesses are induced at pH 5 to 6. The general mechanism
for decarboxylation of amino acids is as follows (Mackie
et al., 1998):
NH2
R – CH – COOH → R – CH2 – NH2 + CO2
Bacterial genera involved in this activity, including Bac-
teroides, Bifidobacterium, Peptostreptococcus, Selenomo-
nas, Streptococcus, and the enterobacteria (Mackie
et al., 1998; Zhu, 2000).
3.1.1.4. Sulfur-containing compounds (hydrogen sulfide
and mercaptans). Sulfur-containing compounds are pro-
duced by anaerobic bacteria via sulfate reduction and
metabolism of sulfur-containing amino acids (cysteine
and methionine). Sulfate reduction proceeds via assimi-
latory or dissimilatory pathways. In the first process,
bacteria produce reduced sulfur for cell biosynthesis of
cysteine and methionine by transporting sulfate into
the cell and activation to adenosine-5 0 -phosphosulfate.
In dissimilatory process, sulfate is utilized as a terminal
electron acceptor and large quantities of sulfide are pro-
duced as follows:
4H2 þ SO2
þ

4 þ H ! HS þ 4H2 O
Sulfate can be supplied by dietary means or depolymer-
ization and desulfation of endogenously produced sul-
fated glycoprotein such as mucins. Bacterial genera
involved in sulfate reduction are Desulfovibrio desulfuri-
cans, Veillonella, Megasphaera, and the enterobacteria
(Hao et al., 1996; Mackie et al., 1998; Arakawa et al.,
2000; Zhu, 2000). Deamination reactions of S-contain-
ing amino acids such as cysteine and methionine also
give rise to sulfides and mercaptans, respectively.
3.2. Odor from land application
Application of biosolids and manure to soil has be-
come a widely accepted agricultural and forest fertiliza-
tion practice that increases plant productivity. Odors at
land application sites were usually the initial operating
problem that resulted in complaint, which were followed
by questions and often, organized public opposition. A
dramatic increase in local ordinances that ban or restrict
the use of biosolids and manure has been observed in re-
cent years as a result of odor complaints. Odor emis-
sions from land application are a priority concern for
the management of biosolids and of manure. The mech-
anisms that generate odorous compounds and the types
of the compounds produced from manure are described
in Section 3.1.1; therefore in this section, information of
odorants from biosolids is emphasized.
One primary goal of biosolids management is to de-
velop a biosolids product with as little offensive odor
as possible (Rosenfeld et al., 2001; EPA 832-F-00-067,
2000). Biosolids are an abundant source of food for
microorganisms, including proteins, amino acids, and
carbohydrates. The microorganisms degrade these
 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
Table 2
Properties of key odorous compounds from biosolids application to soila
Compound Odor description
Sulfur compounds
Dimethyl disulfide Decayed cabbage
Dimethyl sulfide Decayed cabbage
Carbon disulfide Decayed pumpkin
Nitrogen compounds
Trimethylamine Fishy
Ammonia Pungent
Ketones
Methyl ethyl ketone Sweet
Acetone Sweet
a
Source: Adapted from Hunter and Oyama, 2000; Rosenfeld et al., 2001.
energy sources, and odorous compounds are formed.
Rosenfeld (1999) demonstrated that (1) sulfur containing
compounds such as dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), di-
methyl sulfide (DMS), carbon disulfide (CS2); (2) nitro-
gen containing compounds such as ammonia (NH3),
trimethylamine (TMA); and (3) ketones such as methyl
ethyl ketone (MEK), and acetone are odorant emissions
from biosolids application. The properties of these odor-
ous compounds are shown in Table 2. The odor unit
emissions were significantly correlated with the potential
for amino acid decomposition by microorganisms
(Rosenfeld et al., 2001). The mechanisms in microbiol-
ogy and biochemistry of producing key odorous compo-
nents in biosolids are summarized in Section 3.2.1.
3.2.1. Microbiological and biochemical production of key
odors in biosolids
3.2.1.1. Sulfur-containing compounds. Dimethyl disulfide
(DMDS) is produced by many bacteria and fungi found
in wastewater (Tomita et al., 1987; Sunesson et al., 1995).
The methylation of sulfide may be responsible for its
emission (Tomita et al., 1987; Kelly et al., 1994; Ginz-
burg et al., 1999). DMDS accounted for 55% to 98% of
sulfur evolved from biosolids application to soil (Ban-
wart and Bremmer, 1976). DMDS is an important odor-
ant because it has the lowest odor threshold value (OTV,
0.1 lg/m3) of all odorous compound emissions from
biosolids (Table 2) (Rosenfeld et al., 2001). Carbon disul-
fide and dimethyl sulfide (DMS) have odor threshold
Table 3
Precursors of volatile sulfur compounds in soilsa
Precursor compound
Cysteine, cystine
Homocysteine, lantionine, djenkolic acid, organic isothiocyanates
Lanthionine, djenkolic acid, thiocyanate, isothiocyanates
Thiosulfate
Methionine, methionine sulphone, methionine sulphoxide, S-methyl cysteine
a
Source: Adapted from Kelly et al., 1994.
893
Odor threshold values (OTV)
lg/m3 ppb
0.1 0.026
2.5 0.98
24 7.7
0.11 0.046
26.6 7.2
750 737
1100 460
values (OTV) of 24 and 2.5 lg/m3, respectively (Ruth,
1986). They are formed when the amino acids cysteine
and methionine decompose (Table 3) (Banwart and
Bremner, 1975; Kelly et al., 1994; Mosier et al., 1977).
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), methyl mercaptan (methaneth-
iol, CH3SH) and ethyl mercaptan (CH3CH2SH) were
not detected in biosolids emissions after application to
soil in aerobic conditions (Banwart and Bremmer,
1976; Rosenfeld, 1999), although these compounds are
present in the ambient air near wastewater facilities. It
is possible that H2S is held in the solution via hydrogen
bonding and also H2S is readily oxidized in aerobic con-
ditions (Paul and Clark, 1996). Methyl mercaptan and
ethyl mercaptan are highly reactive and are easily con-
verted to form disulfides (Hwang et al., 1994). Bacteria
involved in production of DMS and methyl mercaptan
include Parasporobacterium paucivorans, Holophaga
foetida, Sporobacterium olearium (anaerobic bacteria,
produced DMS from the methoxy group of syringates;
Bak et al., 1992; Grech-Mora et al., 1996; Lomans
et al., 2001; Mechichi et al., 1999), and Rhodobacter cap-
sulatus (produces DMS from dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO)
via dimethylsulfoxide reductase; Bray et al., 2001). The
formation of DMDS from methionine by the following
organisms has been reported: Pseudomonas spp. (Kallio
and Larson, 1955), Streptomyces and Bacterium spp. (Se-
gal and Starkey, 1969), Aspergillus spp. (Ruiz-Herrera
and Starkey, 1969), Clostridium sporogenes (Kreis and
Hession, 1973), Alteromonas putrefaciens, Pseudomonas
fluorescens, and Achromobacter spp. (Miller III et al.,
Volatile sulfur compound produced
Carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide, hydrogen sulfide
Carbon disulfide
Carbonyl sulfide
Carbon disulfide
Methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl disulfide
894 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
1973), Pseudomonas putida (Ito et al., 1976), Proteus spp.
(Hayward et al., 1977), and P. fluorescens, Proteus vulga-
ris, and Serratia marcescens (Pohl et al., 1984). Tomita
et al. (1987) reported that Achromobacter group Vd
formed DMDS from S-methyl-L-cysteine and genus
Alcaligenes, A. denitrificans subsp. Xyloxydans, A. deni-
trificans subsp. Denitrificans, A. faecalis, and A. odorans
formed DMDS from both methionine and cysteine.
Geotichum candidum produces DMDS from methyl mer-
captan (Berger et al., 1999). Two methyl mercaptan mol-
ecules are combined to form one DMDS molecule.
3.2.1.2. Nitrogen-containing compounds. The primary
biological forms of nitrogen such as proteins, microbial
cell walls, and nucleic acids are found in wastewater.
These nitrogen containing compounds are mineralized
to ammonium (NHþ 4 ) which deprotonates, resulting in
NH3 emission (Mosier et al., 1977). Anaerobically di-
gested biosolids typically contain between 3% and 6%
nitrogen, of which 40–75% is organic nitrogen and the
rest is NHþ4 –N (Kardos et al., 1977). Ammonia emission
is highest during the first several days after biosolids
application and then significantly decreases (Harmel
et al., 1997). Although there are no published data pre-
senting the NH3 and amine fluxes from biosolids appli-
cation, Rosenfeld et al. (2001) measured NH3 and amine
fluxes from biosolids in the laboratory. The NH3–N flux
was 98.1–99.9% of total N flux, whereas the trimethyla-
mine (TMA) represented 0.1–1.9% of the total N flux
(odor threshold value of NH3 and TMA are 26 and
0.11 lg/m3, respectively) (JEA, 1980; Ruth, 1986). These
numbers are in good agreement with the NH3 and amine
fluxes above a cattle feedlot and from chicken, cow,
horse, and swine faeces (Hutchenson et al., 1982; Schade
and Crutzen, 1995).
Of the amines, trimethylamine (TMA) is always pres-
ent in the highest concentration compared with other
atmospheric amines (ca. 7-folds). This is possibly be-
cause of the fact that trisubstituted amines are less read-
ily attacked by the microorganisms during the protein
catabolism than monoamines (Rosenfeld et al., 2001).
TMA is a malodorous compound usually produced
from choline, betaine, or trimethylamine N-oxide (pres-
ent in marine fish) by microbial activities (Yancey et al.,
1982; King, 1984; Barrett and Kwan, 1985; Mouné
et al., 1999). TMA is frequently found in effluents of
fishmeal manufacturing processes (Sandberg and Ahr-
ing, 1992; Hwang et al., 1994). Bacterial genera involved
in the production of TMA include Aeromonas spp.
(Gram et al., 1990; Gorczyca and Pek, 1985; Gorczyca
et al., 1985), Haloanaerobacter salinarius (Mouné
et al., 1999), Shewanella putrefaciens (Jorgensen and
Huss, 1989; Lopez-Caballero et al., 2001), and Pseudo-
monas putrefaciens (Van Spreekens, 1977).
Because of the low odor threshold value of trimethyl-
amine (TMA) and the high concentrations of NH3 vol-
atized from biosolids, NH3 and TMA compose most of
the odorous N emissions from biosolids application
(Rosenfeld, 1999).
3.2.1.3. Ketones. Ketones including acetone and methyl
ethyl ketone (MEK) are emissions from composting of
biosolids (Van Durme et al., 1992). Although the sweet
odors of ketones are not too objectionable, mixed with
other odorants they contribute to a generally objection-
able odor. Ketones can be formed via anaerobic decom-
position of cellulose, starch, hemicellulose and pectin by
Clostridium sp. (Mosier et al., 1977; El Ammouri, 1987;
Gold et al., 1992; Garcia and Bacares, 1997; Edwards
et al., 1998).
4. Sources of odors associated with food industries
Odors generated from the food processing plants are
usually a mixture of various organic and inorganic com-
pounds in a low concentration. Most of these com-
pounds are reduced carbon, nitrogen, and/or sulfur
compounds, such as aldehydes, ketones, alcohols, acids,
ammonia, amines, sulfides, mercaptans and hydrogen
sulfide, which are easily biodegraded. In some cases,
the odors may also be caused by volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs), which are less biodegradable. The
objectionable odors in the food industry are generally
a result of the physical processing of foods in which bio-
logical or chemical reactions form VOCs. These reac-
tions are usually associated with thermal processing
steps (such as cooking, evaporative condensation, heat-
ing, drying, or smoking of foods) or other processing
steps performed in open vessels. Thermal processing
steps conducted in closed vessels generally do not result
in VOCs emissions (Safriet, 1995a). Besides being pro-
duced during food processing steps, odor compounds
may be produced from stored decaying materials (e.g.,
raw materials, food, and waste products). The odorous
compounds produced during microbial degradation of
organic compounds such as sulfur compounds (hydro-
gen sulfide, methyl mercaptans, dimethyl disulfide);
nitrogen compounds (ammonia, amines, and skatole);
short-chain alcohols; ketones; aldehydes; aromatics;
and acids may cause malodor (Ólafsdóttir et al., 2000;
Miljøstyrelsen, 2002). Most odorous compounds emit-
ted from food plants are not a public health concern
but can be considered a public nuisance and, therefore,
are subjected to local governmental regulations.
Up to now, only very few published data that quan-
tify odor emissions from food industries are available.
However, knowledge of the composition of volatile
compounds in food has greatly increased during the past
decades. Rijkiens and Boelens (1975) calculated that
2600 substances had been identified up to the year
1974 and predicted the occurrence of a total number
 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
of 10,000 odorants in foods. Indeed, about 8000 vola-
tiles were reported up to 1997 (Nijssen et al., 1997).
However, it was found that <5% of the volatiles identi-
fied in foods contribute to aromas (Grosch, 2000). Only
odorants with higher odor activity values (OAV, the ra-
tio of the concentration to the odor threshold) are fre-
quently essential for the formation of character impact
of food (Ziegler and Ziegler, 1998; Grosch, 2001). Vola-
tile compounds in various types of food have been well
documented by Maarse (1991) and Ziegler and Ziegler
(1998). The reactions leading to volatile compounds for-
mation, volatile compounds produced by microorgan-
isms, and the classes of volatile compounds from
different food industries are reviewed in the following
sections.
4.1. Reactions leading to volatile compounds formation
4.1.1. Pyrolysis of amino acids and peptides
Pyrolysis is a thermal decomposition of amino acids
and peptides at very high temperature, significantly
above the boiling point of water (Mottram, 1991). This
very high temperature leads to decarboxylation and
deamination of amino acids, which result in the forma-
tion of aldehydes, hydrocarbons, nitriles, and amines.
4.1.2. Sugar degradation
Caramelized flavors are formed when sugars are
heated at very high temperature. At temperature be-
tween 150 and 180 C water molecules are lost with
the formation of furfural from pentoses or 5-hydroxy-
methyl furfural from hexose sugars. Further heating re-
sults in the formation of many other highly odoriferous
compounds, such as furan derivatives, carbonyl com-
pounds, alcohols, and both of aliphatic and aromatic
hydrocarbons (Fagerson, 1969; Feather and Harris,
1973). Furanones are formed from aqueous degradation
of some reducing sugars: 2,5-dimethyl-4-hydroxy-3
(2H)-furanone is obtained from the base-catalyzed deg-
radation of fructose in boiling aqueous solution (Shaw
et al., 1968) and the 5-methyl homologue is formed by
the dephospholylation and dehydration of ribose-5-
phosphate (Peer and Van den Ouweland, 1968).
4.1.3. Maillard reaction
The Maillard reaction between reducing sugars and
amino acids is one of the most important reactions for
volatile compounds formation in cooked foods. This
reaction does not require the very high temperatures
as required for sugar caramelization and protein pyroly-
sis (Mauron, 1981). However, the reaction rate increases
significantly with temperature. The first step of the reac-
tion involves the addition of the carbonyl group of the
open-chain from a reducing sugar and the amino group
of an amino acid, peptide, or other compound with a
primary amino group. The subsequent elimination of
895
water gives a SchiffÕs base that cyclizes to give the
corresponding N-substituted aldosylamine, which is
then converted into 1-amino-1-deoxy-2-ketose (Ama-
dori product) by the acid-catalyzed Amadori rearrange-
ment. If a ketose, such as fructose, is involved instead of
the aldose sugar, then a ketosylamine is formed and
undergoes a Heyns rearrangement to form 2-amino-2-
deoxyaldose. The Amadori and Heyns intermediates
do not contribute to odor; however, they are important
precursors of odorous compounds. They are thermally
unstable and undergo dehydration and deamination to
give furans, as well as a host of other degradation prod-
ucts (Vernin and Parkanyi, 1982; Mottram, 1991). Mail-
lard products are capable of further reaction. The
subsequent stages of the Maillard reaction involve the
interaction of furfurals, furanones, and dicarbonyls with
other reactive compounds such as amines, amino acids,
hydrogen sulfide, thiols, ammonia, acetaldehyde, and
other aldehydes. These additional reactions lead to
many important classes of volatile compounds, includ-
ing heterocyclics such as pyrazines, oxazoles, thioph-
enes, thiazoles, 2-furfurylthiol, and other heterocyclic
sulfur compounds (Mottram, 1991; Jung et al., 1999;
Mandin et al., 1999; Vauthey et al., 2000; Negroni
et al., 2001).
4.1.4. Strecker degradation
Strecker degradation involves the oxidative deamina-
tion and decarboxylation of an a-amino acid in the pres-
ence of a dicarbonyl compound. This reaction leads to
the formation of an aldehyde containing fewer carbon
atoms than the original amino acid and an a-amino ke-
tone. These amino ketones are important intermediates
in the formation of several classes of heterocylic com-
pounds, including pyrazines, oxazoles, and thiazoles
(MacLeod and Seyyedain-Ardebili, 1981; Vernin and
Parkanyi, 1982; Baines and Mlotkiewicz, 1984; Mot-
tram, 1991; Martin and Ams, 2001). In addition to mer-
captoacetaldehyde and a-amino ketone, in the Strecker
degradation of cysteine hydrogen sulfide, ammonia
and acetaldehyde are formed (Kobayashi and Fujimaki,
1965). The Strecker degradation of methionine is an-
other source of sulfur-containing compounds such as
methional, methanethiol, and 2-propenal (Schutte,
1974).
4.1.5. Thiamin degradation
The thermal degradation of thiamin produces a num-
ber of compounds with particularly potent aromas,
including furans, furanthiols, thiophenes, thiazoles,
and aliphatic sulfur compounds (Mottram, 1991). A
number of bicyclic compounds, which have a low odor
threshold value, are produced from the degradation of
thiamin such as bis-(2-methyl-3-furyl) disulfide (OTV,
2 · 10
8 mg/kg) (Buttery et al., 1984; Hartman et al.,
1984; Reineccius and Liardon, 1985).
896 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
4.1.6. Lipid degradation
4.1.6.1. Thermally induced oxidation of polyunsaturated
fatty acids. An important route of volatile compounds
production in food processing is the thermally induced
oxidation of the unsaturated acyl chains of the lipids
(Mottram, 1991). The oxidative breakdown of the
unsaturated alkyl chains of lipids involves a free radical
mechanism (Frankel, 1980). The reaction is initiated
when a labile hydrogen atom is abstracted from a site
on the lipid with the production of lipid radicals (1).
The lipid radical reacts with oxygen to yield peroxy rad-
icals (2), and is followed by the abstraction of another
hydrogen from a lipid molecule. A hydroperoxide and
another free radical, which can perpetuate the chain
reaction, are formed (3) (Mottram, 1991):
RH ! R þ H ð1Þ
R þ O2 ! ROO ð2Þ
ROO þ RH ! ROOH þ R ð3Þ
Decomposition of the hydroperoxides involves further
free radical mechanisms and the formation of nonradi-
cal products, including volatile compounds. As there
are many different hydroperoxides produced and many
decomposition pathways, a large number of volatile
compounds from lipid oxidation, including alkanes, alk-
enes, aldehydes, ketones, alcohols, esters, and acids, are
produced (Forss, 1972; Grosch, 1982).
4.1.6.2. Autoxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids. The
autoxidation of unsaturated fatty acid chains is also
responsible for the undesirable volatiles associated with
rancidity that develops during the storage of fatty foods.
Lipid autoxidation has been intensively reviewed else-
where (Forss, 1972; Grosch, 1982; Robards et al.,
1988). The reactions by which volatile compounds are
formed from lipids by autoxidation (rancid oxidation)
follow the same general routes as for the thermal oxida-
tion. However, subtle changes in the mechanisms of
these two reactions give rise to different profiles of vola-
tiles in the two systems. For example, the concentration
of hydroperoxides in the thermal-induced oxidation al-
ways remains very low because the hydroperoxides are
extremely heat labile, whereas at lower temperatures
they are more stable and a significant concentration
may build up before the decomposition into volatile
products occurs. This fact leads to different proportions
of various radical intermediates, therefore differences in
the relative amounts of the volatile products and varia-
tions in the actual compounds formed (Mottram, 1991).
The lipid autoxidation products are short-chain satu-
rated or unsaturated aldehydes, ketones, and alcohols.
The unsaturated compounds can undergo further oxida-
tion or secondary reactions, thus yielding a number of
other products such as aldehydes, ketones, acids, alco-
hols, hydrocarbons, lactones, and esters. The type of
compounds formed depends on the type of hydroperox-
ides, temperature, and availability of oxygen. From one
type of fatty acid, about 100 degradation products can
be expected (Nijssen, 1991).
4.1.6.3. Enzyme-mediated conversion of polyunsaturated
fatty acids. Volatiles derived from lipoxygenase-medi-
ated pathways have recently been shown to contribute
to the characteristic flavors of fresh seafood (Josephson
and Lindsay, 1985; Kawai, 1996). When seafood is har-
vested from their native waters, lipoxygenase-mediated
reactions initiate conversions of the abundant polyunsat-
urated fatty acids primarily to fatty acid hydroperoxides
(Josephson and Lindsay, 1985; Hsich et al., 1988). These
hydroperoxide intermediates are then converted by
hydroperoxide lyases to volatile aroma compounds, such
as eight-carbon volatile alcohols and ketones, where they
contribute to the distinct plant-like, metallic characteris-
tics of fresh seafood (Josepson, 1991). The mechanisms
for the enzymatic biosynthesis of some fresh volatile sea-
food flavor compounds from eicosapentanoic acid have
been proposed by Josephson and Lindsay (1985). These
biosynthetic reactions of eicosa-5, 8,11,14,17-pentaenoic
acid with lipoxygenase and hydroperoxide lyases pro-
duce unsaturated carbonyls and alcohols such as 3Z,
6Z-nonadienal, 1,5Z-octadien-3-one, and 1-penten-3-ol
(Josephson and Lindsay, 1985).
4.2. Microbiologically mediated volatile compounds
syntheses
A number of volatile compounds in food may be pro-
duced by microbiological processes. A significant
amount of literature has addressed the production of
volatile compounds in food by microorganisms and is
reviewed elsewhere (Sharpell, 1985; Gatfield, 1988; Gab-
elman, 1994; Ziegler and Ziegler, 1998; Schnürer et al.,
1999). Microorganisms (fungi, yeasts, bacteria) produce
volatile compounds during both primary and secondary
metabolisms from a wide variety of starting compounds
(e.g., acetate, amino acids, fatty acids, and keto acids) as
de novo biosynthesis products and secondary metabo-
lites. Volatile compounds from microorganisms can
indicate spoilage but are also important as flavor com-
pounds of many fermented foods (Miller III et al.,
1973; Freeman et al., 1976; Lundstrom and Racicot,
1983; Kinderlerer, 1989; Janssens et al., 1992; Chini-
vasagam et al., 1998; Halász et al., 1999; Klein et al.,
2001; Marilley and Casey, 2004; Morales et al., 2004).
The volatile compounds produced microbially are mix-
tures of various compounds, including acids, alcohols,
aldehydes, esters, ketones, lactones, pyrazines, amines,
sulfur compounds, and terpenoids, in low concentra-
tions. Microorganisms, which possess the potential for
production of volatile compounds in foods, are pre-
sented in Table 4.
 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907 897

Table 4
Examples of volatile compounds produced by microorganisms and their chemical constituentsa
Substance category Odor description Volatiles produced Microorganisms
Acids Dairy, cheese, butter, sour, rancid Butyric acid Clostridium spp., Clostridium
acetobutylicum, Clostridium butyricum,
Clostridium beijerinckii, Clostridium
tyrobutyricum, Clostridium botulinum
Dairy, cheese, butter, sour, rancid Propionic acid Streptococcus thermophilus,
Propionibacterium freudenreichii,
Propionibacterium acidipropionic
Dairy, cheese, butter, sour, rancid Lactic acid Lactobacillus lactis, Streptococcus sp.,
Leucanostoc sp.
Alcohols Fruity, mushroom Propanol Clostridium acetobutylicum
Alcoholic 2-Methyl-1-propanol Geotrichum candidum, Penicillium
roqueforti
Alcoholic, vinous, banana-like, sweet 3-Methyl butanol Fusarium graminearum, Penicillium
aurantiogriseum
Coconut-like, walnut-like, oily, rancid 3-Octanol Trichothecium roseum
Freshly cut grass-like, perfumy, sweet 1-Octane-3-ol Penicillium glabrum, Penicillium
verrucosum
Fruity, mushroom Vanilyl alcohol Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Lactones Coconut, peachy 6-Pentylpyrole Trichoderma viride
Fruity, peachy c-Decalactone Trichoderma sambuceus, Sporobolomyces
odorus
Sweet, buttery c-Butyrolactone Polyporus durus
Caramel, sweet 4-Hexanolactone Polyporus durus
Fruity, coconut, very sweet c-Octanolactone Polyporus durus
Coconut 5-Hexanolactone Bjerkandera adusta Polyporus durus
Hay-like, spicy Coumarin Pleurotus euosmus
Esters Fruity, berrylike, floral Ethyl acetate Saccharomyces cerevisiae Hansenula sp.,
Candida utilis, Penicillium digitatum,
Pichia anomala
Fruity C2–C4 alkyl esters Geotrichum candidum, Ceratocystis sp.,
Kluyveromyces sp., Dipodascus sp.
Fruity Long-chain fatty acids Pseudomonas genus
Fruity Methyl salicylate Phellinus genus
Aldehydes Fruity, cherry, sour, sharp, pungent, Aliphatic aldehydes Candida utilis, Streptococcus spp., Lactic
bitter almond acid bacteria
Tallowy, green Nonanal Bacillus subtilis
Tallowy, floral, lime Decanal Bacillus subtilis
Almond, nutty, grass-like Benzaldehydes Acinetobacter calcoaceticus
Ketones Dairy, blue cheese, cheese, mushroom, Methyl ketones Penicillium sp.
rose
2-Alkanones Penicillium roqueforti
Diketones Pseudomonas genus
Buttery Diacetyl (butanedione) Steptococcus lactis
Mushroom 3-Octanone Fusarium sporotrichoides, Penicillium
commune
Pyrazines Nutty, roasted, green, damp forest, Various pyrazines Corynebacterium glutamicu, Lactobacillus
potato-like helveticus, Paenibacillus polymyxa,
Pseudomonas perolens, Aspergillus sojae,
Aspergillus sparasiticus, Aspergillus oryzae
Peasy 2-Methoxy-3-isopropylpyrazine Cedecea davisiae, Psuedomonas perolens,
Pseudomonas taetrolens, Penicillium
caseicolum, Serratia odorifera
Earthy 3-Methoxy-2-isobutylpyrazine Pseudomonas perolens
Nutty, ribes-like, bready, sweet 2,5-Dimethylpyrazine Bacillus natto, Bacillus subtilis
Nutty 2,6-Dimethylpyrazine Bacillus subtilis
Roasty, potato-like, musty, malt-like 2,3,5-Trimethylpyrazine Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus natto
Burnt coffee-like, musty, chemical Tetramethylpyrazine Bacillus natto, Bacillus subtilis,
Corynebacterium glutamicum
Earthy, roasty 3,6-Dimethyl-2-ethylpyrazine Bacillus subtilis
(continued on next page)
898 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907

Table 4 (continued)
Substance category Odor description Volatiles produced Microorganisms

Furans Sweet, bitter, almond-like 3-Methyl furan Aspergillus flavus, Penicillium

brevicompaclum
2-Penthyl furan Bacillus subtilis
Terpenoids Citrus, mint, musty, earthy, woody Various terpenoids Ceratocystis moniliformis, Streptomyces
spp.,
Citrus, mint, musty, earthy, woody Acyclic and monoterpenoids Corynebacterium spp., Pseudomonas
putida, Pseudomonas gladioli,
Rhodococcus rubropertinctus, Candida
reukuafii, Rhodotorula minuta,
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Ceratocystis
variospora, Eremethecium ashbyi,
Aspergillus niger
Citrus, mint, musty, earthy, woody Bicyclic-monoterpenoids Pseudomonas sp., Hyphozyma roseoniger,
Cryptococcus albidus, Aspergillus niger
Citrus, mint, musty, earthy, woody Ionone Aspergillus niger, Botryosphaeria rhodina,
Lasiodiplodia theobromae
Terpenes Soil odor 2-Methyl-isoborueol Aspergillus niger, Penicillium solitum
Soil odor Geosmin Penicillium discolor, Penicillium expansum
Amines Fishy Histamine Lactobacillus sp.
Fishy Dimethylamine Pseudomonas fragi, Shewanella putifaciens
Fishy Trimethylamine Pseudomonas fragi, Shewanella putifaciens
Sulfur compounds Sulfidic, rotten egg-like, Hydrogen sulfide Pseudomonas putifaciens, Pseudomonas
mephitica
Sharp, green radish, cabbage Dimethyl sulfide Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Enterobacteriaceae strains, Pseudomonas
fragi
Decayed cabbage Dimethyl disulfide Lactobacillus helveticus, Achrobacter sp.,
Pseudomonas putifaciens, Pseudomonas
fluorescens, Pseudomonas perolens,
Bacillus sp., Bacillus subtilis
Decayed cabbage Dimetyl trisulfide Pseudomonas fluorescens
Potato-like, sweet Methyl mercaptan Achrobacter sp., Pseudomonas putifaciens,
Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas
perolens
Roasty (coffee) Furfurylthiol Saccharomyces cerevisiae
a
Sources: Miller III et al., 1973; Freeman et al., 1976; Maarse, 1991; Armstrong and Brown, 1994; Eaton, 1994; Manley, 1994; Seitz, 1994; Welsh,
1994; Besson et al., 1997; Owens et al., 1997; Chinivasagam et al., 1998; Ziegler and Ziegler, 1998; Halász et al., 1999; Hansen, 1999; Schnürer et al.,
1999; Wagner et al., 1999; Blanchard et al., 2001; Klein et al., 2001; Leejeerajumnean et al., 2001; Beck et al., 2003; Morales et al., 2004.

4.3. Classes of volatile compounds from food industries
The composition of volatile compounds from food
industries is complex and shows a great diversity among
plants. The actual composition of the volatiles is influ-
enced by different factors such as the type of materials
processed, the freshness of the materials by arrival at
the plants, the storing conditions of raw materials and
products, the process steps and the types of process em-
ployed for the production, e.g., the thermal treatment
process (the temperature used), the fermentation process,
etc. Until recently, little was known about volatile com-
pounds in food industrial waste gas; however, the compo-
sition of volatile compounds in food has been studied
intensively. Volatile compounds with high odor activity
values (the ratio of the concentration to the odor thresh-
old) in food play an important role in the impact character
of food (Ziegler and Ziegler, 1998; Grosch, 2001). Because
these compounds have very low odor thresholds and high
odor activity values, they can, at the same time, contribute
to odor problem for food industries. The classes of vola-
tile compounds, which are relevant for the formation of
character impact components in various types of foods,
beverages, and the classes of volatile compounds in waste
gas of some food industries, are shown in Table 5.
5. Discussion
Air pollution control authorities dealing with odor-
ous emissions from agricultural activities and food
industries are often faced with many complaints from
the public. The understanding of the process leading
to odor nuisance requires an overall view of the chain
 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907 899

Table 5
Chemical classes of volatile compounds in various foods, beverages and food processing plantsb
Type of foods, beverages, or food processing plants Chemical classes of volatile compoundsa
Bread Aldehydes (3-methylbutanal, (E)-2-nonenal, (E,E)-2,4-decadienal, hexanal,
phenylacetaldehyde, methional, 2-methylpropanal), acids (acetic acid, 3-metylbutanoic
acid), vanillin, ketones (2,3-butandione, 3-hydroxy-4, 5-dimethyl-2 (5H)-furanone, 1-octen-
3-one, 4-hydroxy-2, 5-dimethyl-3 (2H)-furanone, diacetyl), furans, esters, alcohols, sulfur
containing compounds, hydrocarbons, lactones, phenols, acetals, epoxides, nitrles, pyrazines
(2-methyl-3-ethylpyrazine, 2-ethyl-3, 5-dimethylpyrauzine), n-heterocyclics (2-acetyl-1-
pyrroline)
Rice Hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes ((E,E)-2,4-decadienal, (E)-2-nonenal, decanal), ketones,
carboxylic acids, esters, lactons, furans, pyrroles (2-acetyl-1-pyrroline), pyridines, pyrazines,
other nitrogen compounds, nonheterocyclic sulfur compounds, thiophenes, thiazoles,
phenols and phenol esters
Rice Cakes Carbonyls (1-hydroxy-2-propanone, 3-hydroxy-2-butanone, 1-octen-3-one, hexanal, (E,E)-
2,4-decadienal), alcohols (furfuryl alcohol, pentanol, 4-vinylguacol, 1-octen-3-ol), pyrazines
(2,5-dimethylpyrazine, 2-methylpyrazine, pyrazine, ethyl-3, 6-dimethylpyrazine, 2-ethyl-3, 5-
dimethylpyrazine), sulfur compounds (dimethyl trisulfide), pyroles (2-acetyl-1-pyrroline)
Potato chip Sulfur compounds (methanethiol), aldehydes ((E,Z)-2,4-decadienal, (E,E)-2,4-decadienal,
methylpropanal, 2-methylbutanal, 3-methylbutanal, trans-4, 5-epoxy-(E)-2-decanal, (Z)-2-
nonanol, (E)-2-nonanal, methional, hexanal, phenylacetaldehyde), pyrazines (2-ethyl-3, 5-
dimethylpyrazine, 2-ethyl-3, 6-dimethylpyrazine, 3-ethyl-2, 5-dimethylpyrazine, 2,3-diethyl-5-
methylpyrazine, 2-ethyl-3-ethyl-5-methylpyrazine), ketones (1-octen-3-one, 1-penten-3-one)
Milk Carbonyls, alkanols, free fatty acids (C4–C18), sulfur compounds, pyrazines, pyroles,
pyridines, thiazoles, furan
Fresh cheese Aldehydes (acetaldehyde, 2-methyl propanol, 3-methyl butanol), sulfur compounds,
aromatic compounds, ketones (2,3-butanedione, 2,3-pentanedione, 3-hydroxy 2-butanone),
alcohols (ethanol, 2-methyl propanol, 3-methyl butanol), esters (ethyl acetate), acids
Limburger Cheese Phenol, sulfur containing compounds (dimethyl disulfide, higher dimethyl polysulfides),
indole, methyl ketones, acetophenone
Fermented Soya Beans Ketones (3-hydroxy-2-butanone, butanedione, 3-hydroxy-2-butanone, 3-octanone),
pyrazines (2,5-dimethylpyrazine, trimethylpyrazine, 3,6-dimethyl-2-ethylpyrazine),
aldehydes (nonanal, decanal, benzaldehyde), alcohols (1-octen-3-ol), furans (2-pentylfuran),
sulfur compounds (dimethyl sulfide), phenols (2-methoxyphenol), aliphatic ketones, acids (2-
methylbutanoic acid, acetic acid), aliphatic esters
Meat rendering plants Ammonia, sulfur compounds (dimethyl disulfide, methanethiol, hydrogen sulfide, organic
sulfides, disulfides), C-4 to C-7 aldehydes (hexanal, 2-methylbutanol, 3-methylbutanal),
amines (trimethylamine, C-4 amines), amide, quinoline, pyrazines (dimethylpyrazine, other
pyrazines), C-3 to C-6 organic acids, and lesser amounts of C-4 to C-7 alcohols, ketones,
aliphatic hydrocarbons (chlorinated hydrocarbon, methanesulfonyl chloride), aromatic
compounds
Meatmeal plants Sulfur compounds (hydrogen sulfide, dimethyl disulfide, dimethyl sulfide), ammonia,
aldehydes (3-methylbutanal), ketones (acetone), arene (toluene), furans (2-pentylfuran),
mercaptan, amines (trimethylamine)
Animal fat processing plants Aldehydes, carboxylic acids, ketones
Meat Hydrocarbons, alcohol, phenols, aldehydes (methional, (E, E)-2,4-decadienal, (E, E)-2,4-
nonadienal, 12-methyltridecanal), ketones (1-octen-3-one), carboxylic acids, esters, lactones,
furans (2-methyl-3-(methylthio) furan, 2-methyl-3-furanthiol, bis (2-methyl-3-furyl)
disulfide, furfuryl mercaptan), pyrans, pyroles, pyridines, pyrazines, other nitrogen
compounds, oxazoles, oxazolines, non heterocyclic sulfur compounds, thiophenes, thiazoles
(2-acetylthiazole), thiazolines, other heterocyclic sulfur compounds
Boiled beef Sulfur compounds (methanethiol, dimethyl sulfide, dimetyl trisulfide, dimethyl tetrasulfide),
aldehydes (octanal, nonanal, acetaldehyde, methylpropanal, hexanal, methional, 3-
methylbutanal, 2-methylbutanal, (E)-2-nonenal), furan (2-methyl-3-furanthiol, 2-
furfurylthiol), ketones (1-octen-3-one)
Frankfurter sausages Terpene hydrocarbons, monoterpene alcohols, phenyl propanoids, phenols, aldehydes,
ketones, furanthiols, alicyclic sulfur compounds
Seafood Sulfur compounds, isoprenoid-related compounds, trimethylamine and related amines,
unsaturated hydrocarbons
Cooked Mussel Carbonyls (methional, (Z)-4-heptenal), sulfur compounds (dimethyl disulfide, dimethyl
trisulfide)
Fishmeal plant Alcohols, carbonyls, sulfur compounds, amines, ammonia
Fish oil plant Alcohols, aldehydes, furans, noncyclic hydrocarbons, cyclic hydrocarbons, ketones, sulfur
compounds
Fruit Terpene hydrocarbons, aldehydes, esters, alcohols
(continued on next page)
900 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
Table 5 (continued)
Type of foods, beverages, or food processing plants
Canned fruits and vegetables plants
Sugar beet extraction plant
Sugar beet drying plant
Liquid beet sugar
Spices and condiments
Seed oil extraction plants
Wine
Distilled beverages
Beer
Coffee, cacao, tea
a
The predominated compounds or the compounds that have character impact of the food in each class of odors are shown in the brackets.
b
Sources: Parliament et al., 1982; Maarse, 1991; Oberthür, 1992; Passant et al., 1992; Safriet, 1993; Safriet, 1995b, Safriet, 1995c; Besson et al.,
1997; Owens et al., 1997; Ziegler and Ziegler, 1998; Buttery et al., 1999; Chevance and Farmer, 1999; Pihlsgård et al., 1999; Schieberle and Pfnuer,
1999; Ólafsdóttir et al., 2000; Ramel and Nomine, 2000; Grosch, 2001; Guen et al., 2001; Kirchhoff and Schieberle, 2001; Leejeerajumnean et al.,
2001; Luo and Agnew, 2001; Kastner and Das, 2002; Marilley and Casey, 2004; Morales et al., 2004.
leading from odorant formation to complaint (Van Har-
reveld, 2001). Poor odor control and prevention of envi-
ronmental problems are related to a lack of knowledge
of the fundamental nature of odor and its production.
In contrast to noise measurement based on sound pres-
sure levels, a quantitative description of environmental
odor exposure is limited both by the complexity of
chemical mixtures and by the sensitivity of the human
nose. Poorly defined odorant mixtures and their compo-
nent interactions typically escape analytical quantifica-
tion. Instead, standardized sensory methods for odor
exposure assessment are now being accepted as valid
and representative measurement techniques in Germany
(Stuetz and Nicolas, 2001; Sucker et al., 2001).
Microbial activities are considered to be responsible
for malodor generation from the manure slurry and
biosolids during storage or application to the land.
The odor emitted from agricultural operations is pri-
marily a result of an incomplete anaerobic degradation
of the organic matter in manure or biosolids. This
incomplete degradation results in the production of
Chemical classes of volatile compoundsa
Alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, terpenes, aromatic compounds, acids, esters, sulfur
compounds, nitrogen compounds
Reduced sulfur compounds, organic acids, basic nitrogen compounds, aldehydes,
ketones, alcohols, nitriles
Aldehydes, amines, carboxylic acids, esters, heterocyclic compounds, ketones
Diacetyl, carboxylic acids (propionic acid, butyric acid, isovaleric acid), carbonyls
(octanal, nonanal, decanal), furans (furfural, 5-(hydroxy-methyl)-2-furfural, 2,5-
dimetylfuran) geosmin (trans-1,10-dimethy-trans-9-decalol), pyrazines (2,5-
dimethylpyrazine, 2,6-dimetylpyrazine), sulfur compounds (dimethyl disulfide),
phenols (4-methoxyphenol)
Hydrocarbons, terpene, alcohols, carbonyls, acids, aldehydes, ketones, esters,
epoxides, phenols and derivatives, furans, pyrans
Hexane, aldehydes, fatty acids
Alcohols, esters, terpenes, acids, lactones, carbonyls, acetals, phenols, sulfur
compounds, nitrogen compounds, amines, acetamides, pyrazines
Alcohols, carbonyls, aldehydes, acetals, diketone, fatty acids, esters
Alcohols, acids, esters, aldehydes, ketones, amines, pyrroles, pyridines, pyrazines,
sulfur compounds
Sulfur compounds (2-furfurylthiol, methanethiol, 2-methyl-3-furanthiol, dimethyl
sulfide, dimethyl trisulfide, bis (2-methyl-3-furyl) disulfide 3-methyl-2-buten-1-
thiol), furanones (4-hydroxy-2, 5-dimethyl-3 (2H)-furanone, 2(or 5)-ethyl-4-
hydroxy-5 (or 2)-methyl-3 (2H)-furanone, 3-hydroxy-4, 5-dimethyl-2 (5H)-
furanone, 5-ethyl-3-hydroxy-4-methyl-2 (5H)-furanone, 3-hydroxy-4-methyl-5-
ethyl-2 (5H)-furanone), ketones (1-octen-3-one, (E)-ß-damascenone, diacetyl, 5-
methyl-(E)-2-heptene-4-one), aldehydes (octanal, nonanal, (E, E)-2,4-decadienal,
methional, 12-methyltridecanal, (Z)-2-nonenal, acetaldehyde, (E)-2-nonenal,
methylpropanal, phenylacetaldehyde, 3-methylbutanal), pyrazines (2-ethyl-3,5-
dimethylpyrazine, 2-ethyl-3,6-dimethylpyrazine, 2-ethenyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazine,
2,3-diethyl-5-methylpyrazine, 3-isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine, 2,5-dimethylpyrazine,
tetramethylpyrazine, pyrazine), alcohols (3-mercapto-3-methyl-1-butanol, 2-
phenylethanol), hydrocarbons, acids, esters, lactones, phenols and derivatives,
thiophenes, pyrroles, oxazoles, thiazoles, pyridines, quinolines, amines
offensive volatile fatty acids, aromatic chemicals,
amines, ammonia and other nitrogenous compounds,
and sulfur-containing compounds (Mackie et al., 1998;
Rosenfeld et al., 2001; Zhu, 2000; Whitehead and Cotta,
2004). Many of the odorous compounds commonly
found in fresh manure intensified during anaerobic
decomposition and storage (Pfost et al., 1999; Gralapp
et al., 2002). The increased concentration of odorous
compounds in stored manure supports the observation
that more objectionable odors are associated with stored
manure rather than manure that is spread daily (Pfost
et al., 1999). General categories of technology types
including waste treatment methods by aeration, acti-
vated sludge treatment, anaerobic digestion, biofiltra-
tion, constructed wetlands, electric stabilization,
lagoon covers, covered in-ground anaerobic digester,
manure ‘‘additives’’, sequencing batch reactors, dietary
modifications, wet scrubbing and windbreak walls, have
been under development or demonstration by many re-
search groups (Mackie et al., 1998; Powers, 1999; EPA
832-F-00-067, 2000; Zhu, 2000; Hudson et al., 2001;
 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
Varel and Miller, 2001; Williams, 2001; Gralapp et al.,
2002; Nahm, 2002; Johnston et al., 2002; Lau et al.,
2003; Moeser et al., 2003; Sheridan et al., 2003; Hayes
et al., 2004). During the past few years several of these
technologies have been demonstrated on a pilot scale
and/or at commercial swine facilities. The objective is
to provide farmers, policy makers and the public with
useful information needed to make informed decisions
regarding alternative waste management technologies.
To be sustainable, the alternatives must be economically
feasible and environmentally sound (Williams, 2001).
Based on efforts to date, some have been identified to
be promising while others have been identified to be
impractical for implementation onto commercial-scale
facilities based on performance data and/or operational
cost. Nahm (2002) reported that improving the nutrient
efficiency of the livestock by addition of feed supple-
ments and modifying feeding programs can result in sig-
nificant decreases in the nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P),
odor, and dry matter (DM) weight of manure. More-
over, certain feed manufacturing techniques, including
grinding methods to provide proper particle size of feed
grains and feed uniformity, or expanding and pelleting
techniques, when done properly can significantly reduce
N, P, and odor contents and DM weight of chicken and
swine manures (Nahm, 2002). Moeser et al. (2003) re-
ported that differences in swine waste odor are achiev-
able through altering diet composition and that the
response to the odor depends on individual odor percep-
tion. Manipulation of dietary crude protein levels shows
no significant influence on the average daily intake and
the average daily gain of the pigs, but appears to offer
a low cost alternative, in relation to end-of-pipe treat-
ments, for the abatement of odor and ammonia emis-
sions from finishing pig houses (Hayes et al., 2004).
Although many technologies exist, biofiltration still is
the most attractive method due to its low maintenance
and operating costs (Sheridan et al., 2003). Biofilters
generally are used to clean the air exiting the building
through exhaust fans. However, biofilters have only
been efficient at treating low concentrations of odorants
from waste exhaust air. Aeration, the basic principle of
this treatment is to provide, by whatever means, enough
dissolved oxygen to aerobic bacteria so they can actively
decompose the odorous compounds; hence achieving
odor reduction. Since the gastrointestinal tract of ani-
mals is strictly anaerobic, the levels of the aerobic bacte-
ria, if any, cannot be high. Thus, under aeration,
whether the existing aerobic bacteria are able to compete
for nutrients actively, to establish their growth firmly,
and to reach dominant levels rapidly becomes critical.
More fundamental research in completely determining
the microbiological activities of different bacterial gen-
era in aeration is needed (Zhu, 2000). Moreover, Varel
and Miller (2001) suggested that treating animal waste
aerobically is not economically feasible and it does little
901
for conservation of nutrients. Johnston et al. (2002)
showed that the use of 10 commercially available man-
ure odor control agents (containing alkylphenol poly-
ethoxylates, common industrial surfactants) at
manufacturer-recommended rates was not effective for
suppressing E. coli, a commonly used indicator of faecal
pollution and a potential pathogen, in stored swine
manure slurry. Some published data indicate that the
application of straw and other biological materials to
effluent pond surfaces as a continuous cover reduces
odor emissions. Hudson et al. (2001) confirmed that a
variety of cover materials are effective in reducing pond
odor emissions. While greenhouse gas emissions appear
to vary according to the cover type, therefore the impact
of permeable pond covers on overall pond performance
requires additional research. Williams (2001) has shown
that swine manure treatment systems, including a cov-
ered in-ground anaerobic digester, a sequencing batch
reactor, and an upflow biological aerated filter system,
significantly reduced the odor emissions and suggested
that each of these three systems represent promising
alternatives to conventional swine waste management
practices related to odor emissions.
Many nuisance complaints due to odor occur just after
manure or biosolids have been applied to agricultural
land. Such spreading creates a large surface area of the
applied waste to interact with the atmosphere. This prob-
lem can be reduced by using sub-surface deposition
system applicators. The odors emission rate was reduced
by 8–38% compared to that of the conventional splash-
plate applicator. The highest reduction in odor strength
and odor emission rate was observed in the most offensive
period after manure application (Lau et al., 2003).
Objectionable odors in the food industry are generally
a result of the physical processing of foods (such as heat-
ing, drying, or smoking of food). However, microbiolog-
ical activity can also be the source of the odors. Odors
generated from the food processing plants are usually a
mixture of various organic and inorganic compounds
in low concentrations. Typical odorous compounds
encountered in food processing include aldehydes, ke-
tones, lactones, alcohols, acids, esters, ammonia, amines,
pyrazines, sulfides, mercaptans, and hydrogen sulfide,
which are not toxic and easily biodegradable. In some
processing steps, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
which are less biodegradable, may be produced. The
physical and chemical characteristics of specific odors
are largely affected by the types of odor sources, which
depend on the types of the raw material, and the process
used for the production (Safriet, 1995a; Philips, 1996).
6. Recommendations
Agricultural odors are generated primarily as the
result of manure storage but also result from animal
902 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
housing and manure or biosolids application to the land.
Implementation strategies to reduce odors from these
sources should be considered an integral part of an oper-
ationÕs plans to reduce the incidence of nuisance pollu-
tants. The sub-surface deposition system may be a
solution for hog producers who wish to reduce odor
complaints from applying manure without the cost and
problems associated with deep injection systems. An-
other odor control method is to carefully select the time
when manure or biosolids will be applied to land. Careful
timing can decrease the opportunity for neighbors to
experience the odor released. Avoid spreading just prior
to weekends or holiday when people are involved in out-
door activities. Pay attention to the wind direction and
avoid spreading on days the wind is blowing toward
neighbors or recreational areas. Morning spreading is
preferred because the air warms as it rises, promoting
manure or biosolids drying and lifting the odor upwards
for mixing and dilution in the atmosphere. Avoid high
humidity days or just before a rain because the humidity
causes odors to linger. If possible, it is best to conduct all
land application of manure within a short time period
rather than to extend the task. This will decrease the
duration of odors (Miner, 1997; Hanna et al., 2001).
Until recently, the number of data that quantified
odor emissions from food industrial waste gases was
limited and the potential sources of odors from many
of these industries remain uncharacterized. To be suc-
cessful in odor control, these data need to be obtained.
The basic principles for controlling odors are reduction
of odors at the generation sources and removal of odors
from collection air-streams before the odors are dis-
charged into the atmosphere. Source control can be af-
fected by using low-emission processing and good
housekeeping techniques. The odor-causing gas streams
from food industries can be collected through piping
and ventilation systems and made available for treat-
ment. A number of technologies for abating odor from
exhaust gas of food industries are commercially avail-
able. Depending on the specific technologies, physical,
chemical, and/or biological treatment principles are
used. The major techniques for removing odorous com-
pounds from the exhaust air stream include mist filtra-
tion, absorption (scrubbing), adsorption, thermal
oxidation/incineration, chemical oxidation, and biologi-
cal oxidation (biofiltration, biotrickling filtration, bio-
scrubbing). More than one of these techniques may be
used in one treatment system. The criteria for choosing
one over the other technique are: (1) the volume of gas
(or vapor) being produced and its flow rate, (2) nature
of the odorous compounds to be treated and complexity
of the mixture, (3) level of odor control to be achieved,
(4) investment and operational costs, and (5) security
constraints (Dragt and Van Ham, 1991; Philips, 1996).
Nevertheless, in order to be competitive for applications
in the food processing industry, such technologies need
to demonstrate the following features: (1) stable and
predictable performance in removal of odorous com-
pounds from the contaminated air stream, (2) easily
adaptable to applications experiencing large variations
of air-flow rates and odor intensity, (3) no or low gener-
ation of environmentally harmful chemical by-products,
(4) low generation of solid and/or liquid waste materials,
and (5) low equipment costs and low operational and
maintenance requirement (Philips, 1996).
In order to develop environmentally sound, sustain-
able agricultural and food industrial operations, we need
to integrate research that focuses on modern analytical
techniques and the latest sensory technology of mea-
surement and evaluation of odor and pollution, together
with a fundamental knowledge of factors that are the
basic units contributing to production of odor and pol-
lutants. Without a clear understanding of what odor is,
how to measure it, and where it originates, it will be dif-
ficult to control the odor (Mackie et al., 1998; Zhu,
2000).
Acknowledgments
The paper is written under the financial support of
the Federal Ministry of Education and Research
(BMBF) and is a part of the project ‘‘Innovative meth-
ods for the collection and reduction of odor pollution
from agriculture and food industry’’.
References
Arakawa, T., Ishikawa, Y., Ushida, K., 2000. Volatile sulfur produc-
tion by pig cecal bacteria in batch culture and screening inhibitors
of sulfate reducing bacteria. J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 46, 193–198.
Armstrong, D.W., Brown, L.A., 1994. Aliphatic, aromatic, and
lactone compounds. In: Gabelman, A. (Ed.), Boiprocess Produc-
tion of Flavor, Fragrance, and Color Ingredients. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York, USA, pp. 41–94.
Baines, D.A., Mlotkiewicz, J.A., 1984. The chemistry of meat flavor.
In: Bailey, A.J. (Ed.), Recent Advances in the Chemistry of Meat.
Royal Society of Chemistry, London, pp. 119–164.
Bak, F., Finster, K., Rothfuss, F., 1992. Formation of dimethyl sulfide
and methanethiol from methoxylated aromatic compounds and
inorganic sulfide by newly isolated anaerobic bacteria. Arch.
Microbiol. 157, 529–534.
Banwart, W.L., Bremner, J.M., 1975. Formation of volatile sulfur
compounds by microbial decomposition of sulfur-containing
amino acids in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 7, 359.
Banwart, W.L., Bremmer, J.M., 1976. Evolution of volatile sulfur
compounds from soils treated with sulfur containing organic
materials. Soil Biol. Biochem. 8, 439.
Barker, H.A., 1981. Amino acid degradation of anaerobic bacteria.
Ann. Rev. Biochem. 50, 23–40.
Barrett, E.L., Kwan, H.S., 1985. Bacterial reduction of trimethylamine
oxide. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 39, 131–149.
Beck, H.C., Hansen, A.M., Lauritsen, F.R., 2003. Novel pyrazine
metabolites found in polymyxin biosynthesis by Paenibacillus
polymyxa. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 220, 67–73.
 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
Berger, C., Khan, J.A., Molimard, P., Martin, N., Spinnler, H.E.,
1999. Production of sulfur flavors by ten strains of Geotrichum
candidum. Appl. Envron. Microbiol. 65, 5510–5514.
Besson, I., Creuly, C., Gros, J.B., Larroche, C., 1997. Pyrazine
production by Bacillus subtilis in solid-state fermentation on
soybeans. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 47, 489–495.
Blanchard, L., Tominaga, T., Dubourdier, D., 2001. Formation of
furfurylthiol exhibiting a strong coffee aroma during oak barrel
fermentation from furfural released by toasted staves. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 49, 4833–4835.
Both, R., 2001. Directive on odour in ambient air: an established
system of odour measurement and odour regulation in Germany.
Wat. Sci. Technol. 44 (9), 119–126.
Bray, R.C., Adams, B., Smith, A.T., Richards, L.M., Lowe, D.J.,
Bailey, S., 2001. Reactions of dimethylsulfoxide reductase in the
presence of dimethyl sulfide and the structure of dimethyl sulfide-
modified enzyme. Biochemistry 40, 9810–9820.
Buttery, R.G., Haddon, W.F., Seifert, R.M., Turnbaugh, J.G., 1984.
Thiamin odor and bis(2-methyl-3-furyl)disulfide. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 32, 674–676.
Buttery, R.G., Orts, W.J., Takeoka, G.R., Nam, Y., 1999. Volatile
flavor components of rice cakes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47, 4353–
4356.
Cato, E.P., Geroge, W.L., Finegold, S.M., 1986. Genus Clostridium.
In: Sneath, P.H.A. (Ed.), BergeyÕs Manual of Systematic
Bacteriology, vol. 2. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, USA, pp.
1141–1200.
Chevance, F.F.V., Farmer, L.J., 1999. Identification of major volatile
odor compounds in frankfurters. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47, 5151–
5160.
Chinivasagam, H.N., Bremner, H.A., Wood, A.F., Nottingham, S.M.,
1998. Volatile components associated with bacterial spoilage of
tropical prawns. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 42 (1-2), 45–55.
Dragt, A.J., Van Ham, J., 1991. Biotechniques for Air Pollution
Abatement and Odour Control Policies. In: International Sympo-
sium, Proceedings, Maartricht, 27–29 October 1991. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eaton, D., 1994. Dairy flavors. In: Gabelman, A. (Ed.), Bioprocess
Production of Flavor, Fragrance, and Color Ingredients. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA, pp. 168–204.
Edeogu, I., Feddes, J., Colemann, R., Leonard, J., 2001. Odour
emission rates from manure treatment/storage systems. Wat. Sci.
Technol. 44 (9), 269–275.
Edwards, D.D., McFeters, G.A., Venkatesan, M.I., 1998. Distribu-
tion of Clostridium perfringens and fecol sterols in a Benthic
coastal marine environment influenced by the sewage outfall
from McMurdo Station Antarctica. Appl. Envron. Microbiol.
64, 2596.
El Ammouri, G.M., 1987. Effects of butyric and acetic acid on acetone-
butanol formation by Clostridium acetobutylicum. Biochimie 69 (2),
109.
EPA 832-F-00-067, 2000. Biosolids and residuals management fact
sheet: Odor control in biosolids management. EPA 832-F-00-067.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Washing-
ton, DC, USA. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/owmitnet/
mtbfact.htm.
Fagerson, I.S., 1969. Thermal degradation of carbohydrate. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 17, 747–750.
Feather, M.S., Harris, J.F., 1973. Dehydration reactions of carbohy-
drates. Adv. Carbohyd. Chem. Biochem. 28, 161–224.
Forss, D.A., 1972. Odor and flavor compounds from lipids. Progr.
Chem. Fats Other Lipids 13, 181–258.
Frankel, E.N., 1980. Lipid oxidation. Progr. Lipid Res. 19, 1–22.
Freeman, L.R., Silverman, G.J., Angelini, P., Merritt Jr., C., Esselen,
W.B., 1976. Volatiles produced by microorganisms isolated from
refrigerated chicken at spoilage. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 32 (2),
222–231.
903
Garcia, M., Bacares, E., 1997. Bacterial removal in three pilot-scale
wastewater treatment system for rural areas. Wat. Sci. Technol. 35
(11–12), 197.
Gatfield, I.L., 1988. Production of flavour and aroma compound by
biotechnology. Food Technol. 42, 110–169.
Gabelman, A., 1994. Bioprocess Production of Flavor, Fragrance,
and Color Ingredients. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York,
USA.
Ginzburg, B., Chalifa, I., Hadas, O., Dor, I., Lev, O., 1999. Formation
of dimethyloligosulfides in lake Kinneret. Wat. Sci. Technol. 40 (6),
73–78.
Gold, A.J., Lamp, B.E., Loomis, G.W., Boyd, J.R., Cabelli, V.I.,
McKiel, C.G., 1992. Wastewater renovation in buried and recal-
culating sand filters. J. Environ. Qual. 21, 720.
Gorczyca, E., Pek, P.L., 1985a. Mesophilic spoilage of bay trout
(Arripis trutta), bream (Acanthropagrus butcheri) and mullet
(Aldrichetta forsteri). In: Reilly, A. (Ed.), FAO Fish Rep. (317)
Suppl. 474, pp. 123–132.
Gorczyca, E., Sumner, J.L., Coden, D., Brady, P., 1985. Mesophilic
fish spoilage. Food Technol. Austral. 37, 24–26.
Gottschalk, G., 1985. Bacterial Metabolism, second ed. Springer-
Verlag, New York, NY.
Gram, L., Wedell-Neergaard, C., Huss, H.H., 1990. The bacteriology
of fresh and spoiling Lake Victorian Nile perch (Lates niloticus).
Int. J. food Microbiol. 10, 303–316.
Gralapp, A.K., Powers, W.J., Faust, M.A., Bundy, D.S., 2002. Effects
of dietary ingredients on manure characteristics and odorous
emissions from swine. J. Anim. Sci. 80 (6), 1512–1519.
Grech-Mora, I., Fardeau, M.-L., Patel, B.K.C., Ollivier, B., Rimbault,
A., Prensier, G., Garcia, J.-L., Garnier-Sillam, E., 1996. Isolation
and characterization of Sporobacter termitidis gen. nov., from the
digestive tract of the wood-feeding termite Nasutitermes lujae. Int.
J. Syst. Bacteiol. 46, 512–518.
Grosch, W., 1982. Lipid degradation products and flavors. In:
Morton, I.D., MacLeod, A.J. (Eds.), Food Flavors. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp. 325–398.
Grosch, W., 2000. Specificity of the human nose in perceiving food
odorants. In Schieberle, P., Engel, K.H. (Eds.), Frontiers of
Flavour Science, Proceedings of the Ninth Weurman Flavour
Research Symposium, Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Lebensmit-
telchemie, Garching, pp. 213–219.
Grosch, W., 2001. Evaluation of the key odorants of foods by dilution
experiments, aroma models and omission. Chem. Senses. 26, 533–
545.
Guen, S.L., Prost, C., Demaimay, M., 2001. Evaluation of the
representativeness of the odor of cooked mussel extracts and the
relationship between sensory descriptors and potent odorants. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 49, 1321–1327.
Halász, A., Baráth, Á., Holzapfel, W.H., 1999. The biogenic amine
content of beer; the effect of barley, malting and brewing on
amine concentration. Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch. A 208, 418–
423.
Hanna, M., Harmon, J., Glanville, T., 2001. Livestock Industry
Facilities Environment: Environmental issues in livestock produc-
tion home study course. Department of Agricultural & Biosystems
Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, USA http://www.ae.ias-
tate.edu .
Hansen, J., 1999. Inactivation of MXR1 abolishes formation of
dimethyl sulfide from dimethyl sulfoxide in Saccharomyces cerevi-
siae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 3915–3919.
Hao, O.J., Chen, J.M., Huang, L., Buglass, R., 1996. Sulfate-reducing
bacteria. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26 (1), 155–187.
Hardwick, D.C., 1985. Agricultural problems related to odor preven-
tion and control. In: Nielsen, V.C., Voorburg, J.H., Hermite, P.L.
(Eds.), Odour Prevention and Control of Organic Sludge and
Livestock Farming. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, New
York, pp. 21–26.
904 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
Harmel, R.D., Zartman, R.E., Mouron, C., Wester, D.B., Sosebee,
R.E., 1997. Modeling ammonia volatilization from biosolids
applied to semiarid rangeland. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 61, 1794.
Hartman, G.J., Carlin, J.T., Scheide, J.D., Ho, C.T., 1984. Volatile
compounds from the thermal degradation of thiamin at high and
low moisture levels. J. Agric. Food Chem. 32, 1015–1018.
Hartung, J., 1992. Emission and control of gases and odorous
substances from animal housing and manure stores. Zbl. Hyg.
192 (5), 389–418.
Hayes, E.T., Leek, A.B., Curran, T.P., Dodd, V.A., Carton, O.T.,
Beattie, V.E., OÕDoherty, J.V., 2004. The influence of diet crude
protein level on odour and ammonia emissions from finishing pig
houses. Bioresour. Technol. 91 (3), 309–315.
Hayward, N.J., Jeavons, T.H., Nicholson, A.J.C., Thornton, A.G.,
1977. Methyl mercaptan and dimethyl disulfide production from
methionine by Proteus species detected by headspace gas-liquid
chromatography. J. Clin. Microbiol. 6, 187–194.
Hsich, R.J., German, J.B., Kinsella, J.E., 1988. Lipoxygenase in fish
tissue: some properties of the 12-lipoxygenase from trout gill. J.
Agic. Food Chem. 36, 680–685.
Hwang, Y., Matsuo, T., Hanaki, K., Suzuki, N., 1994. Removal of
odorous compounds in wastewater by using activated carbon,
ozonation and aerated biofilter. Water Res. 28, 2309–2319.
Hudson, N., Casey, K., Melvin, S., Nicolas, P., 2001. Laboratory
investigation of supported permeable organic covers for the
management of odour emissions from anaerobic piggery waste
ponds. Water Sci. Technol. 44 (9), 317–326.
Hunter, P., Oyama, S.T., 2000. Control of Volatile Organic Com-
pound Emissions: Conventional and Emerging Technologies. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA.
Hutchenson, G.L., Mosier, A.R., Andre, C.E., 1982. Ammonia and
amine emissions from a large cattle feedlot. J. Environ. Qual. 11,
288.
Ishaque, M., Bisaillon, J.G., Beaudet, R., Sylvestre, M., 1985.
Degradation of phenolic compounds by microorganisms indige-
nous to swine waste. Agric. Wastes 13, 229–235.
Ito, S., Nakamura, T., Eguchi, Y., 1976. Purification and character-
ization of methioniase from Pseudomonas putida. J. Biochem. 79,
1263–1272.
JEA, 1980. Reports of studies on the measurement of offensive odours
(1972–1980) (Jap.). Code D3, Japanese Environmental Agency,
Tokyo, Japan.
Janssens, L., Depooter, H.L., Schamp, N.M., Van Damme, E.J., 1992.
Production of flavours by microorganisms. Process Biochem. 27,
195–215.
Johnston, D., Chapman, R., Masse, D., Topp, E., 2002. Evaluation of
commercial odor control agents for suppressing Eschericia coli in
swine manure slurry. J. Environ. Qual. 31 (6), 2120–2123.
Jones, K.B.C., 1977. UK problems and legislation relating to odour
control. Agric. Environ. 3, 245–258.
Jorgensen, B.R., Huss, H.H., 1989. Growth and activity of Shewanella
putrefaciens isolated from spoiling fish. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 9
(1), 51–62.
Josepson, D.B., 1991. Sea food. In: Maarse, H. (Ed.), Volatile
Compounds in Foods and Beverages. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New
York, USA, pp. 179–202.
Josephson, D.B., Lindsay, R.C., 1985. Enzymic generation of
volatile aroma compounds from fresh fish. In: Parliment, T.H.,
Croteau, R. (Eds.), Biogeneration of Aromas, ACS Symposium
Series, 317. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, USA,
pp. 201–219.
Jung, M.Y., Bock, J.Y., Baik, S.O., Lee, J.H., Lee, T.K., 1999. Effects
of roasting on pyrazine contents and oxidative stability of red
pepper seed oil prior to its extraction. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47,
1700–1704.
Kallio, R.E., Larson, A.D., 1955. Methionine degradation by a species
of Psuedomonas. In: McElroy, W.D., Glass, H.B. (Eds.), A
Symposium on Amino Acid Metabolism. Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press, Baltimore, USA, pp. 616–634.
Kardos, L.T., Scarsbrook, C.E., Volk, V.V., 1977. Recycling elements
in waste through soil-plant systems. In: Soil for Management of
Organic Waste and Waste Waters. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison,
WI, USA.
Kastner, J.R., Das, K.C., 2002. Wet scrubber analysis of volatile
organic compound removal in the rendering industry. J. Air Waste
Mamag. Assoc. 52 (4), 459–469.
Kawai, T., 1996. Fish flavor. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nut. 36 (3), 257–
298.
Kelly, D.P., Wood, A.P., Jordan, S.L., Paddent, A.N., Gorlenko,
V.M., Dubinina, G.A., 1994. Biological production and consump-
tion of gaseous organic sulphur compounds. Biochem. Soc. Trans.
22 (4), 1011–1015.
Kinderlerer, J.L., 1989. Volatile metabolites of filamentous fungi
and their role in food flavour. J. Appl. Bact. Symp. (Suppl.),
133s–144s.
King, G.M., 1984. Metabolism of trimethylamine, choline, and glycine
betaine by sulfate-reducing and methanogenic bacteria in marine
sediments. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 48, 719–725.
Kirchhoff, E., Schieberle, P., 2001. Determination of key aroma
compounds in the crumb of a three-stage sourdough rye bread by
stable isotope dilution assays and sensory studies. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 49, 4304–4311.
Klein, N., Maillard, M.B., Thierry, A., Lortal, S., 2001. Conversion of
amino acids into aromacompounds by cell-free extracts of Lacto-
bacillus helveticus. J. Appl. Microbiol. 91 (3), 404–411.
Kobayashi, N., Fujimaki, M., 1965. Formation of mercaptoacetalde-
hyde, hydrogen sulfide and acetaldehyde by boiling cysteine and
carconyl compounds. Agric. Biol. Chem. 29, 698–699.
Kreis, W., Hession, C., 1973. Isolation and purification of L-methio-
nine-a-deamino-c-mercaptomethane-lyase (L-methioninase) from
Clostridium sporogenes. Cancer Res. 33, 1862–1865.
Lau, A., Bittman, S., Lemus, G., 2003. Odor measurements for
manure spreading using a subsurface deposition applicator. J.
Environ. Sci. Health B 38 (2), 233–240.
Leejeerajumnean, A., Duckham, S.C., Owens, J.D., Ames, J.M., 2001.
Volatile compounds in Bacillus-fermented soybeans. J. Sci. Food
Agric. 81, 525–529.
Lomans, B.P., Leijdekkers, P., Wesselink, J.-J., Bakkes, P., Pol, A.,
Van der Drift, C., Op den Camp, H.J.M., 2001. Obligate sulfide-
dependent degradation of methoxylated aromatic compounds and
formation of methanethiol and dimethyl sulfide by a freshwater
sediment isolate, Parasporobacterium paucivorans gen. nov., sp.
nov.. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67, 4017–4023.
Lopez-Caballero, M.E., Sanchez-Fernandez, J.A., Moral, A., 2001.
Growth and metabolic activity of Shewanella putrefaciens main-
tained under different CO2 and O2 concentrations. Int. J. Food
Microbiol. 64 (3), 277–287.
Lundstrom, R.C., Racicot, L.D., 1983. Gas chromatographic deter-
mination of dimethylamine and trimethylamine in seafood. J.
Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 66 (5), 1158–1163.
Luo, J., Agnew, M.P., 2001. Gas characteristics before and after
biofiltration treating odorous emissions from animal rendering
processes. Environ. Technol. 22 (9), 1091–1103.
Maarse, H., 1991. Volatile Compounds in Food and Beverages.
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, USA.
Macfarlane, J., Macfarlane, G.T., 1995. Proteolysis and amino acid
fermentation. In: Gibson, G.R., Macfarlane, G.T. (Eds.), Human
Colonic Bacteria. CRC Press, New York, USA, pp. 75–100.
Mackie, R.I., 1994. Microbial production of odour components. In:
Proceedings of International Round Table on Swine Odour
Control, 13–15 June at Ames, IA, USA, pp. 18–19.
Mackie, R.I., Stroot, P.G., Varel, V.H., 1998. Biochemical identifica-
tion and biological origin of key odour components in livestock
waste. J. Anim. Sci. 76, 1331–1342.
 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
MacLeod, G., Seyyedain-Ardebili, M., 1981. Natural and simulated
meat flavors (with particular reference to beef). CRC Crit. Rev.
Food Sci. Nutr. 14, 309–437.
Mahin, T.D., 2001. Comparison of different approaches used to
regulate odours around the world. Wat. Sci. Tech. 44 (9), 87–
102.
Marilley, L., Casey, M.G., 2004. Flavours of cheese products:
metabolic pathways, analytical tools and identification of produc-
ing strains. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 90 (2), 139–159.
Mandin, O., Duckham, S.C., Ames, J.M., 1999. Volatile compounds
from potato-like model systems. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47, 2355–
2359.
Manley, C.H., 1994. Development and regulation of flavor, fragrance,
and color ingredients produced by biotechnology. In: Gabelman,
A. (Ed.), Bioprocess Production of Flavor, Fragrance, and Color
Ingredients. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA, pp. 19–40.
Martin, F.L., Ams, J.M., 2001. Formation of Strecker aldehydes and
pyrazines in a fried potato model system. J. Agric. Food Chem. 49
(8), 3885–3892.
Mauron, J., 1981. The Maillard reaction in food: a critical review from
the nutritional standpoint. In: Morton, I.D., Macleod, A.J. (Eds.),
Maillard Reactions in Food. Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 3–35.
Mechichi, T., Labat, M., Garcia, J.-L., Thomas, P., Patel, B.K.C.,
1999. Sporobacterium olearium gen. Nov., sp. nov., a new meth-
anethiol-producing bacterium that degrades aromatic compounds,
isolated from an olive mill wastewater treatment digester. Int. J.
Syst. Bacteriol. 49, 1741–1748.
Miljøstyrelsen, 2002. Industrial odour control. Environmental Guid-
line, No. 9. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Danish
Ministry of the Environment, Denmark.Vejledning nr. 9/2002.
Miller III, A., Scanlan, I.R.A., Lee, J.S., Libbey, L.M., 1973. Volatile
compounds produced in sterile fish muscle (Sebastes melanops) by
Pseudomonas putrifaciens, Pseudomanas fluorescens, and an Achro-
mobacter species. Appl. Microbiol. 26, 18–21.
Miller, T.L., Wolin, M.J., 1979. Fermentations by saccharolytic
intestinal bacteria. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 32 (1), 164–172.
Miner, J.R., 1997. Nuisance concerns and odor control. J. Dairy Sci.
80 (10), 2667–2672.
Miner, J.R., 1999. Alternatives to minimize the environmental impact
of large swine production units. J. Anim. Sci. 77, 440–444.
Moeser, A.J., See, M.T., Van Heugten, E., Morrow, W.E., Van
Kempen, T.A., 2003. Diet and evaluators affect perception of swine
waste odor: an educational demonstration. J. Anim. Sci. 81 (12),
3211–3215.
Morales, P., Feliu, I., Fernandez-Garcia, E., Nunez, M., 2004. Volatile
compounds produced in cheese by Enterobacteriaceae strains of
dairy origin. J. Food Prot. 67 (3), 567–573.
Mottram, D.S., 1991. Meat. In: Maarse, H. (Ed.), Volatile Compounds
in Foods and Beverages. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, USA,
pp. 107–177.
Mosier, A.R., Morrison, S.M., Elmond, G.K., 1977. Odours and
emissions from organic wastes. In: Soil for Management of
Organic Waste and Waste Waters. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison,
WI, USA.
Mouné, S., ManacÕh, N., Hirschler, A., Caumette, P., Willison, J.C.,
Matheron, R., 1999. Haloanaerobacter salinarius sp. nov., a novel
halophilic fermentative bacterium that reduces glycine-betaine to
trimethylamine with hydrogen or serine as electron donors;
emendation of the genus Haloanaerobacter. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol.
49, 103–112.
Nahm, K.H., 2002. Efficient feed nutrient utilization to reduce
pollutants in poultry and swine manure. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci.
Technool. 32 (1), 1–16.
Negroni, M., DÕAgostina, A., Alnoldi, A., 2001. Effects of olive,
canola, and sunflower oils on the formation of volatiles from the
Maillard reaction of lysine with xylose and glucose. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 49, 439–445.
905
Nijssen, B., 1991. Off-flavors. In: Maarse, H. (Ed.), Volatile Com-
pounds in Foods and Beverages. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,
USA, pp. 689–735.
Nijssen, L.M., Visscher, C.A., Maarse, H., Willemsens, L.C., Boelens,
M.H., 1997. Volatile Compounds in Food, seventh ed. supplement
1. TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute, Zeist, the
Netherlands.
NPPC, 1995. A review of the literature on the nature and control of
odours from pork production facilities. National Pork Producers
Council, Des Moines, IA.
Oberthür, R.C., 1992. Geruchsminderung in der Fleischmehlindustrie-
Suche nach optimalen Lösungen und Kontrollen. In: Dragt, A.J.,
Van Ham, J. (Eds.), Biotechniques for Air Pollution Abatement
and Odour Control Policies International Symposium 1991, The
Netherlands, pp. 167–175.
Ólafsdóttir, G., Högnadóttir, Á., Martinsdóttir, E., Jónsdóttir, H.,
2000. Application of an electronic nose to predict total volatile
bases in Capelin (Mallotus villosus) for fishmeal production. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 48, 2353–2359.
OÕNeill, D.H., Phillips, V.R., 1991. A review of the control of odour
nuisance from livestock buildings: Part 1. Influence of the
techniques for managing waste within the building. J. Agric. Eng.
Res. 50, 1–10.
OÕNeill, D.H., Phillips, V.R., 1992. A review of the control of odour
nuisance from livestock buildings: Part 3, Properties of the odorous
substances, which have been identified in livestock wastes or in the
air around them. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 53, 23–50.
Osada, T., Fukumoto, Y., 2001. Development of a new dynamic
chamber system for measuring harmful gas emissions from
composting livestock waste. Wat. Sci. Tech. 44 (9), 79–86.
Osada, T., Kuroda, K., Yonaga, M., 2000. Nitrous oxide, methane
and ammonia emissions from composting process of swine waste.
The Japanese Society of Waste Management Experts 2 (1), 51–56.
Owens, J.D., Allagheny, N.A., Kipping, G., Ames, J.M., 1997.
Formation of volatile compounds during Bacillus subtilis fermen-
tation of Soya beans. J. Sci. Food Agric. 74, 132–140.
Passant, N.R., Richardson, S.J., Swannell, R.P.J., Woodfield, M., Van
der Lugt, J.P., Wolsink, J.H., Hecht, V., Brebbermann, D.,
Bischoff, H., 1992. Biodegradability of the volatile organic com-
pound (VOC) emissions from the food, drink and metal degreasing
industries. In: Dragt, A.J., van Ham, J. (Eds.), Biotechniques for
Air Pollution Abatement and Odour Control Policies International
Symposium 1991, The Netherlands, pp. 315–320.
Parliament, T.H., Kolor, M.G., Rizzo, D.J., 1982. Volatile compo-
nents of Limburger Cheese. J. Agric. Food Chem. 30, 1006–1008.
Paul, E.A., Clark, F.E., 1996. Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry.
Academic Press Limited, London, p. 27.
Peer, H.G., Van den Ouweland, G.A.M., 1968. Synthesis of 4-
hydroxy-5-methyl-3-(2H)-furanone from D-ribose-5-phosphate.
Rec. Trav. Chem. Pays-Bas. 87, 1017–1020.
Persaud, K.C., Khaffaf, S.M., Hobbs, P.J., Sneath, R.W., 1996.
Assessment of conducting polymer odour sensors for agricultural
malodour measurements. Chem. Senses. 21 (5), 495–505.
Pfost, D.L., Fulhage, C.D., Hoehne, J.A., 1999. Odors from livestock
operations: causes and possible cures. In: Air Quality Regulations
and Missouri Agriculture, U-5-37989. Available from: http://
muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/.
Philips, R.J., 1996. Odor control of food processing operations by
applications of air cleaning technologies. Food Manufacturing
Coalition (FMC) Need Statement, ET-5-A-(11). R.J. Philips &
Associates, Inc., Virginia, USA. Available from: http://fpc.unl.edu/
fmc/need-08.htm.
Philips, R.J., 1997. Odour control of food processing operations by air
cleansing technologies (biofiltration). State of the art report: Food
Manufacturing Coalition for Innovation and Technology Transfer.
R.J. Philips & Associates, Inc., Virginia, USA. Available from:
http://foodsci.unl.edu/fmc/4odors.htm.
906 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
Pihlsgård, P., Larsson, M., Leufvén, A., Lingnert, H., 1999. Chemical
and sensory properties of liquid beet sugar. J. Agric. Food Chem.
47, 4346–4352.
Pohl, M., Bock, E., Rinken, M., Aydin, M., König, W.A., 1984.
Volatile sulfur compounds produced by methionine degrading
bacteria and the relationship to concrete corrosion. Z. Naturforsch.
Teil C 39, 240–243.
Powers, W.J., 1999. Odour control for livestock system. J. Anim. Sci.
77 (Suppl. 2)/ J. Dairy Sci. 82(Suppl. 2), 169–176.
Powers, W.J., Van Kempen, T., Bundy, D.S., Sutton, A., Hoff, S.J.,
2000. Objective measurement of odours using gas chromatogra-
phy/mass spectrometry and instrumental technologies. In: Air
Pollution from Agricultural Operations. Proceedings of the Second
International Conference. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 33–41.
Ramel, M., Nomine, M., 2000. Physicochemical characterisation of
odours. Analusis 28 (3), 171–179.
Reineccius, G.A., Liardon, R., 1985. The use of charcoal traps and
microwave desorption for the analysis of headspace volatiles above
heated thiamin solutions. In: Berger, R.G., Nitz, S., Schreier, P.
(Eds.), Topics in Flavor Research. Eichhorn, Marzling-Hangen-
ham, Germany, pp. 125–136.
Rijkiens, F., Boelens, M.H., 1975. The future of aroma research. In:
Maarse, H., Groenen, P.J. (Eds.), Aroma Research. Proceedings of
the International Symposium on Aroma Research. Center for
Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, pp.
203–220.
Robards, K., Kerr, A.F., Patsalides, E., 1988. Rancidity and its
measurement in edible oils and snack foods. A review. Analyst 113,
213–224.
Rosenfeld, P.E., 1999. Characterization, quantification, and control of
odour emissions from biosolids application to forest soil. Ph.D.
thesis, Univ. Wa., College Forest Resour., Seattle.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Henry, C.L., Benett, D., 2001. Wastewater dewatering
polymer affect on biosolids odour emissions and microbial activity.
Water Environ. Res. 73 (3), 363–367.
Rothe, M., Thomas, B., 1963. Aroma of bread. Evaluation of chemical
taste analyses with the aid of threshold value. Z. Lebensm. Unters
Forsch. 119, 302–310 (in German).
Ruiz-Herrera, J., Starkey, R.L., 1969. Dissimilation of methionine by
fungi. J. Bacteriol. 99, 544–551.
Ruth, J.H., 1986. Odour thresholds and irritation levels of several
chemical substances: A Review. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 47,
142.
Safriet, D., 1993. Emission factor documentation for AP-42, Section
6.13.1: Fish Processing. EPA-68-D2-0159, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Safriet, D., 1995a. Emission factor documentation for AP-42, Section
9.8.3 : Pickles, sauces, and salad dressings. EPA-68-D2-0159, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Safriet, D., 1995b. Emission factor documentation for AP-42, Section
9.5.3 : Meat Rendering Plants. EPA-68-D2-0159, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. USA.
Safriet, D., 1995c. Emission factor documentation for AP-42, Section
9.8.1: Canned Fruits and Vegetable. EPA-68-D2-0159, US Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Sandberg, M., Ahring, B.K., 1992. Anaerobic treatment of fishmeal
process waste-water in UASB reactor at high pH. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 36, 800–804.
Schade, G.W., Crutzen, P.J., 1995. Emissions of aliphatic amines from
animal husbandry and their reactions: Potential source of N2O and
HCN. J. Atmos. Chem. 22, 319.
Schieberle, P., Pfnuer, P., 1999. Characterization of key odorants in
chocolate. In: Teranishi, R., Wick, E.L., Hornstein, I. (Eds.),
Flavor Chemistry: Thirty Years of Progress. Kluwer Academic/
Plenum Publishers, New York, USA, pp. 147–153.
Schnürer, J., Olsson, J., Börjesson, T., 1999. Review: Fungal volatiles
as indicators of food and feeds spoilage. Fungal Gen. Biol. 27, 209–
217.
Schulte, D.D., 1997. Critical parameters for emission. In: Voermans,
J.A.M., Monteny, G.J. (Eds.), Proc. Ammonia and Odour Emis-
sions from Animal Production Facilities. NVTL Publishing,
Rosmalen, The Netherlands, pp. 23–34.
Schutte, L., 1974. Precursors of sulfur-containing flavor compounds.
CRC Crit. Rev. Food Technol. 4, 457–505.
Scott, T., Eagleson, M., 1988. Concise Encyclopedia Biochemistry,
second ed. Walter de Gruyter, New York, USA.
Segal, W., Starkey, R.L., 1969. Microbial degradation of methionine
and identity of the resulting sulfur products. J. Bacteriol. 98, 908–
913.
Seitz, E.W., 1994. Fermentation production of pyrazines and terpe-
noids for flavors and fragrances. In: Gabelman, A. (Ed.),
Bioprocess Production of Flavor, Fragrance, and Color Ingredi-
ents. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA, pp. 95–134.
Sharpell, F.H., 1985. In: Moo-Young, M. (Ed.), Comprehensive
Biotechnology: The Principles, Applications, and Regulations of
Biotechnology in Agriculture and Medicine, vol. 3. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin.
Shaw, P.E., Tatum, J.H., Berry, R.E., 1968. Base-catalyzed fructose
degradation and its relation to non-enzymatic browning. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 16, 979–982.
Sheridan, B.A., Curran, T.P., Dodd, V.A., 2003. Biofiltration of n-
butyric acid for control odour. Bioresour. Technol. 89 (2), 199–205.
Shukla, N.P., 1991. Air pollution by odour-sources, identification and
control. Rev. Environ. Health. 9 (4), 239–244.
Shusterman, D., 1992. Critical review: the health significance of
environmental odor pollution. Arch. Environ. Health. 47, 76–87.
Spoelstra, S.F., 1980. Origin of objectionable odorous components in
piggery wastes and the possibility of applying indicator compo-
nents for studying odor development. Agric. Environ. 5, 241–260.
Stuetz, R.M., Nicolas, J., 2001. Sensor arrays: an inspired idea or and
objective measurement of environmental odours. Wat. Sci. Tech.
44 (9), 53–58.
Sturaro, A., Parvoli, G., Doretti, L., 1991. Gas chromatographic/mass
spectrometric identification of some organic compounds and
odours in poultry wastes. Org. Mass Spectrometry. 26, 967–971.
Sucker, K., Both, R., Winneke, G., 2001. Adverse effects of environ-
mental odours: reviewing studies on annoyance responses and
symptom reporting. Wat. Sci. Tech. 44 (9), 43–51.
Sunesson, A.L., Gullberg, J., Blomquist, G., 2001. Airborne chemical
compounds on dairy farms. J. Environ. Monit. 3, 210–216.
Sunesson, A.L., Vaes, W.H.J., Nilsson, C.A., Blomquist, G., Anders-
son, B., Carlson, R., 1995. Identification of volatile metabolites
from five fungal species cultivated on two media. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 61, 2911.
Sutton, A.L., Kephart, K.B., Verstegen, M.W.A., Canh, T.T., Hobbs,
P.J., 1999. Potential for reduction of odours compounds in swine
manure through diet modification. J. Anim. Sci. 77, 430–439.
Tamminga, S., 1992. Gaseous pollutants by farm animal enter-
prises. In: Phillips, C., Piggins, D. (Eds.), Farm Animals and
the Environment. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp.
345–357.
Tomita, B., Inoue, H., Chaya, K., Nakamura, A., Hamamura, N.,
1987. Identification of dimethyl disulfide-forming bacteria isolated
from activated sludge. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 53, 1541–1547.
Van Durme, G.P., McNamara, B.F., McGinley, C.M., 1992. Bench
scale removal of odour and volatile organic compounds at a
composting facility. Water Environ. Res. 64, 19.
Van Harreveld, A.P., 2001. From odorant formation to odour
nuisance: new definitions for discussing a complex process. Wat.
Sci. Tech. 44 (9), 9–15.
 S. Rappert, R. Müller / Waste Management 25 (2005) 887–907
Van Horn, H.H., Newton, G.L., Kunkle, W.E., 1996. Ruminant
nutrition from environmental perspective: Factors affecting whole-
farm nutrient balance. J. Anim. Sci. 74, 3082–3102.
Van Spreekens, K.J., 1977. Characterization of some fish and
shrimp spoiling bacteria. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 43 (3–4),
283–303.
Varel, V.H., Miller, D.N., 2001. Effect of carvacrol and thymol on
odour emissions from livestock wastes. Wat. Sci. Tech. 44 (9), 143–
148.
Vauthey, S., Milo, Ch., Frossard, Ph., Garti, N., Leser, M.E.,
Watzke, H.J., 2000. Structure fluids as microreactors for flavor
formation by the maillard reaction. J. Agric. Food Chem. 48,
4808–4816.
Vernin, G., Parkanyi, C., 1982. Mechanisms of formation of hetero-
cyclic compounds in Maillard and pyrolysis reactions. In: Vernin,
G. (Ed.), Chemistry of Heterocyclic Compounds in Flavors and
Aromas. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, pp. 151–207.
Voet, D., Voet, J.G., 1995. Biochemistry, second ed. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, USA.
Wagner, R., Czerny, M., Bielohradsky, J., Grosch, W., 1999. Struc-
ture-odour-activity relationships of alkylpyrazines. Z. Lebensm.
Unters. Forsch. A 208, 308–316.
Watanabe, S., 1999. World status of environmentally friendly livestock
production. Symposium of Environment Friendly Livestock Pro-
duction, 96th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Society of Animal
907
Science, Kagoshima, Japan. Available from: http://group.lin.go.jp/
leio/english/world/world_1.htm.
Welsh, F.W., 1994. Overview of bioprocess flavor and fragrance
production. In: Gabelman, A. (Ed.), Bioprocess Production of
Flavor, Fragrance, and Color Ingredients. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, USA, pp. 1–16.
Whitehead, T.R., Cotta, M.A., 2004. Isolation and Identification of
hyper-ammonia producing bacteria from swine manure storage
pits. Curr. Microbiol. 48, 20–26.
Williams, C.M., 2001. Technologies to address air quality issues
impacting animal agriculture. Wat. Sci. Tech. 44 (9), 233–236.
Yancey, P.H., Clark, M.E., Hand, S.C., Bowlus, R.D., Somero, G.N.,
1982. Living with water stress: evolution of osmolyte systems.
Science 217, 1214–1222.
Zahn, J.A., Hatfield, J.L., Do, Y.S., Dispirito, A.A., Laird, D.A.,
Pfeiffer, R.L., 1997. Characterization of volatile organic emissions
and wastes from a swine production facility. J. Environ. Qual. 26
(6), 1687–1696.
Zhu, J., Riskowski, G.L., Torremorell, M., 1999. Volatile fatty acids as
odor indicators in swine manure – A critical review. Transactions
of the ASAE 42 (1), 175–182.
Zhu, J., 2000. A review of microbiology in swine manure odour
control. Agric. Ecosystems and Environ. 78, 93–106.
Ziegler, E., Ziegler, H., 1998. Flavourings: Production, Composition,
Applications, Regulations. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany.