Concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous dioxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) in the atmosphere are rising continuously. The first step to reduce emissions from landfills is to gain better knowledge about the quantities emitted. There are several ways to quantify CH4 emissions at landfills. Comprehensive quality analyses of individual methods for emission rate quantification at landfills are few to date. In the present paper, the authors conducted two field trials with three different remote sensing methods to gain more knowledge about the possibilities and challenges in quantification of CH4 emissions from landfills. One release trial was conducted with released N2O as tracer and CH4 for quality assessment of the methods. In the second trial, the N2O tracer was released on a landfill to gain experience under field conditions. The well-established inverse dispersion modelling method (IDMM) was used based on concentration data of TDLAS (Tunable Diode Laser Absorption Spectroscopy)-instruments and on concentration data of a partly drone based Fourier-Transformation-Infrared-Spectroscopy (FTIR)-instrument. Additionally, a tracer-method with N2O-tracer and FTIR measurements was conducted. In both trials, IDMM based on TDLAS data and FTIR data provided the best results for high emission rates (15% deviation) and low emission rates (47% deviation). However, both methods have advantages, depending on the field of application. IDMM based on TDLAS measurements is the best choice for long-term measurements over several hours with constant wind conditions (8% deviation). The IDMM based on drone based FTIR measurements is the means of choice for measurements under changing wind conditions and where no linear measurement distances are possible.

Intensive livestock farming substantially impacts the environment, especially farm and slurry management. Slurries are significant sources of greenhouse gases and ammonia. The present study was conducted in an intensive livestock production system in Galicia, Spain. The measurements were taken at six different farms in that region along with one control using common management practices in Galicia without the addition of a bio-activator. This study aimed to quantify GHGs and NH3 fluxes and their reductions during slurry treatment using a dynamic chamber through FTIR analysis and to examine the potential of usage of bio-activators for slurry management. In addition, gas concentrations were measured at the barns and compared with their slurry management and architectural volume to obtain influences on their management and the architectural volume of the barns. Additionally, the effects of using a bio-activator in the barns inside the facility areas were addressed. Moreover, qPCR analysis was conducted to understand the correlations between syncoms and methanogen populations when a bio-activator is added to the slurry with at least a 30% reduction in methanogenic populations. The outcomes suggest encouraging results for GHG reductions in the livestock sector, giving farmers future options for climate change mitigation among their standard practices.

The main source of N2O emissions is agriculture, and coffee monocultures have become an important part of these emissions. The demand for coffee has increased in the last five decades. Thus, its production in agricultural fields and the excess of fertilizers have increased. This study quantified N2O emissions from different dose applications and types of nitrogen fertilizer in a region of major coffee production in Costa Rica. A specific methodology to measure N2O fluxes from coffee plants was developed using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). Measurements were performed in a botanical garden in Germany and plots in Costa Rica, analyzing the behavior of a fertilizer in two varieties of coffee (Catuai and Geisha), and in a field experiment, testing two types of fertilizers (chemical (F1) and physical mixture (F2)) and compost (SA). As a result, the additions of synthetic fertilizer increased the N2O fluxes. F2 showed higher emissions than F1 by up to 90% in the field experiment, and an increase in general emissions occurred after a rain event in the coffee plantation. The weak levels of N2O emissions were caused by a rainfall deficit, maintaining low water content in the soil. Robust research is suggested for the inventories.

In the last 20 years, the demand for coffee production has increased detrimentally, heightening the need for production, which is currently driving the increase in land cultivation for coffee. However, this increase in production ultimately leads to the amplification of waste produced. This study aims to develop an experimental methodology for sustainable coffee by-products (Pulp (CP)) in Costa Rica for nutrient-rich compost. The performance of the experiments is to explore and optimize composting processes following its key parameters. This will allow quantifying the emissions rate to obtain an emission factor for CP during the open composting process and optimizing the conditions to minimize CH4 emissions using P and green waste (GW) materials. Five CP and GW mixtures were analyzed for the composting process for ten weeks, acting P as primary input material as a by-product. Quantification of the methane emissions was performed in two areas: composting area and open field deposition. Peak temperatures of compost appeared at twenty-five days for control and five days for GW added treatments. CP emission factors provide a similar result with the standard values recommended by the literature, accomplishing the emission reductions. Thus, this study designed and validated a sustainable protocol for transforming coffee by-products into compost.

This study investigated the performance of aerobic windrow systems by using coffee by-products and green waste to reduce gaseous emissions. Thereafter, a comparison with the current treatment and gaseous emissions at a Coffee Mill in Costa Rica was made. Two different studies where performed in Germany (pile I and II) and one study in a Coffee Mill in Costa Rica (pile III). Temperature, water content, and pH were the key parameters controlled over 35 days in all the systems. Moreover, CH4 emission rates were quantified by a FTIR and by a portable gas detector device where the emissions reached values 100 times higher when coffee by-products as a unique material for the composting process was used. Results show that highest emission rates during the composting process for pile I was 0.007 g(m(2))(-1) h(-1), for pile II 0.006 g(m(2))(-1) h(-1), and for pile III 3.1 g(m(2))(-1) h(-1). It was found that CH4 emissions could be avoided if the mixture and the formation of the windrow piles were performed following the key parameter for composting, and the usage of additional material is used. With this, the reduction of CH4 emissions at the Mill in Costa Rica could be achieved in the future.

Throughout the world, the agriculture, sanitation and waste management sectors are mainly carried out in isolation, resulting in permanent nutrient drainage and large amounts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to inadequate or excessive use of fertilizers (San Martin Ruiz, et al. 2018). The purpose of this first part of study is to develop an innovative experimental methodology for the sustainable recycling and improved treatment of coffee by-products to produce organic compost, which can be used in agricultural crops including coffee plantations. The methodology will be implemented in a Mill in Costa Rica, due to the current waste management problems and the potential it possesses to reduce GHG emissions during its production cycle.

Odour concentration expressed in terms of OUE/m3 by using the dynamic olfactometry analysis, standardized by the European Norm (EN) 13725 are by now the most commonly and worldwide accepted method to measure odours. The EN, first edition published in the year 2003, is actually under review process by the WG2 of the CEN/TC246 and the end of the revision work is expected for the year 2018. Related to the odour panel the standard fixes some parameters (e.g: panel size). Nothing is, however, performed about the composition of the panel members in terms of their gender, the age of the involved persons and their origin and nationality. Also the current literature is limited to discussing how the measurement of emission rates derived from the same odour source could be related to the panel composition.The scope of this study is to investigate the influence on the determination of odour concentration with dynamic olfactometry, according to EN 13725 standards, applying different panel conditions, with the objective to define the optimal criteria to evaluate the odour concentration and obtain the highest repeatability and accuracy of the sensorial measure.A critical evaluation was carried out in relation to the same odour source with the comparison of the different panel composition (in terms of gender, age and nationality) to measure the odour concentration. In the experimental studies the measurements were conducted within 5 h after sampling to reduce the variability of the mixture and increase the reliability. All assessors who participate in odour measurements were qualified and tested according the quality criteria assurance foreseen by the EN13725. Studies were taken considering real environmental odour emissions collected at a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).The results obtained show a not significantly influence of the investigated characteristics of the single panel member in the repeatability assurance of the measure of the odour concentration by dynamic olfactometry. While a variation of the results in terms of OU/m3 is demonstrated related to the different nationality and biological factors (age and gender) of the assessors. There is therefore the need to consider these factors in the current odour determination practices, for example in calculating the uncertainty factor of the measurement.

Gaseous emissions of biowaste treatment facilities have several adverse effects. In Germany, a law to collect biological waste separately was introduced in January 2015. Since then there is a discussion about greenhouse gases which could be emitted in a significant rate and exceed the positive aspects. Default factors for methane and nitrous oxide from biological treatments given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) suggests that fugitive emissions even from composting processes should not be neglected. The research work presents an innovative method to quantify fugitive methane and odour emissions at a composting plant. The proposed method uses a combination of a remote sensing measurements and the application of a backwards Lagrangian stochastic (bLs) based micrometeorological dispersion modelling. The remote sensing technology is based on the absorption of infrared light with a wavelength sensitive to the substance to be determined. With the downwind measured methane concentration deducted by the upwind measured background concentration and the known wind conditions, a gas dispersion is simulated back in time to estimate the gas emission rate of a plant. Using the methane emissions as a tracer for dispersion characteristics in the atmosphere it is even possible to estimate a more accurate odour emission rate from passive sources at composting plants.

Odour emissions from industrial plants affect air quality and are consequently cause of a growing number of public complaints. The control of odour represents a key issue in plant management. The starting point for an effective odour control is their objective measurement. The electronic nose represents probably the odour monitoring technique with the greatest potential, but currently there is not a universally recognized procedure for their application in the continuous characterization of environmental odours. The paper aims to present a novel procedure for training electronic noses in order to maximize their capability of operating a qualitative classification and estimating the odour concentration of ambient air. This novel approach reduces the uncertainty and increases the reliability of the continuous odour measures. The Electronic Nose (E.Nose) seedOA realized by the Sanitary Environmental Engineering Division (SEED) of the University of Salerno was applied to a real case in a large wastewater treatment plant. The papers highlights the characterization of the odour concentrations from the different treatment units and the identification of the principal odour sources.

Throughout the world, agriculture, sanitation and waste management sectors are mainly carried out in isolation, resulting in permanent nutrient drainage and large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions due to inadequate or excessive use of fertilizers. Currently in Costa Rica, after a study of coffee waste treatment practices in conjunction with NAMA Coffee and based on previous studies carried out in the country, certain questions have arisen regarding the practices and management of coffee by-products to produce organic compost. During this study, a methodology to measure the impact of the application of an aerobic treatment technology for coffee by-products was developed and applied. With this method, different techniques of composting were compared regarding their emission of greenhouse gases, especially methane. As a next step, the reasons for the higher emission rates were examined. The emission rates are given in units of [g/m 2 h] and the categorization and emission ranges were obtained according to the type of treatment and movement at the composting piles of each mill visited in the country. Moreover, ranges of emission factor in this article are given in g CH 4 /kg raw material. The duration of the project was from December 2017 until July 2018. In total 7 mills were visited in the country, divided in 4 cooperatives or mills and 3 private mills (small coffee farms). The methane emissions that have been observed during the different types of treatment applied to the coffee by-products indicate that the conditions must be optimized in order to create high-quality compost without any negative impact on the environment. The results obtained give an overview about five categories of treatment techniques that are used in Costa Rica to convert coffee by-products into compost which is used as a fertilizer. To some of these composting-categories, methane emission factors were calculated. It was found, that depending on the type of treatment, the methane emissions are between 10 times and more than 60 times higher than emission rates at garden waste or bio-waste composting plants referenced in literature. German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ) established a NAMA support project (NSP): Low-carbon coffee Costa Rica. Within this framework, the actual activities are carried out.

During last decades several techniques were proposed for the measurement of odours in environmental field but until now no one was applied and diffused between worldwide countries. These due to the presence of a large number of variables correlated to fast and continuous variability of odours, their low concentration in environment, the meteorological conditions, the difficulty to sampling a representative volume of air. In Europe the dynamic olfactometry method was standardized in 2003 by EN 13725 and was proposed for the measurement of odour emissions. At same time several Countries have specific guidelines that norm in different way the assessment of odours. The scope of this study is to compare and evaluate the principal odour measurement methods (GC-MS, dynamic olfactometry, and electronic nose), nowadays applied in technical practices and reported in current scientific literature, used to identify and characterize the odour emissions from a wastewater treatment plant, with the aim of analysing the weaknesses and strengths of the different techniques. The study of the correlation between odour concentrations measured by different methods was also presented. The evaluation and analyses of the different odour measurement techniques have been carried out at the ISWA Institute of the Department of Civil Engineering, Stuttgart University. The investigated samples, collected at the different odour sources at wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) LFKW located at Stuttgart University Campus (Northern Germany), are analysed by dynamic olfactometry, electronic nose (eNose) and gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The results obtained highlight the various data on the odour concentrations between different measurement methods at each sampling source of WWTP. Odour indexes were proposed to compare and evaluate the different sensorial and analytical techniques.

The aim of the work was to establish a method for emission control of biogas plants especially the observation of fugitive methane emissions. The used method is in a developmental stage but the topic is crucial to environmental and economic issues. A remote sensing measurement method was adopted to determine methane emission rates of a biogas plant in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany. An inverse dispersion model was used to deduce emission rates. This technique required one concentration measurement with an open path tunable diode laser absorption spectrometer (TDLAS) downwind and upwind the source and basic wind information, like wind speed and direction. Different operating conditions of the biogas plant occurring on the measuring day (December 2013) could be represented roughly in the results. During undisturbed operational modes the methane emission rate averaged 2.8 g/s, which corresponds to 4% of the methane gas production rate of the biogas plant.

Methane emission monitoring has become increasingly essential for diffusive area sources, especially for landfills, which contribute to a significant fraction of the total anthropogenic methane emission globally. Statutorily, methane emission rate from landfills in Germany shall be examined on a semiannual basis; however, an appropriate approach has yet to be developed and adopted for general use. In this study, a new method is proposed based on experimental results, which utilizes a TDLAS (Tunable Diode Laser Absorption Spectroscopy) instrument - GasFinder2.0 (R) system and a dispersion model LASAT (Lagrangian Simulation of Aerosol Transport) as the measurement device and calculation model, respectively. Between April 2010 and December 2011, a research project was conducted at a pilot scale landfill in the south of Germany. Drawing on the extensive research into this pilot project, an effective strategy of measurement setup was determined. Methane concentration was measured with GasFinder2.0 (R) system in the upstream and downstream sections of the project site, while wind and turbulence data were measured simultaneously by an ultrasonic anemometer. The average methane emission rate from the source can be calculated by using the results as input data in the dispersion model. With this method, site-specific measurement approaches can be designed for not only landfills, but also different diffusive area sources with less workload and lower cost compared to conventional FID (Flame Ionization Detector) method. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Basing on application of biofilter technology in Europe examples of some countries in Asia and America are considered, how biofilter technology is applied or would apply. In principle, a large potential for biofilters exists. Due to the lack of legal regulations currently only a few systems are implemented.

Chapter 8 Case Studies for Assessment, Control and Prediction of Odour Impact J. Lehtinen, J. Lehtinen Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, FinlandSearch for more papers by this authorS. Giuliani, S. Giuliani Sanitary Environmental Engineering Division (SEED), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, Fisciano, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorT. Zarra, T. Zarra Sanitary Environmental Engineering Division (SEED), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, Fisciano, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorM. Reiser, M. Reiser ISWA (Institut für Siedlungswasserbau, Wassergüte- und Abfallwirtschaft) University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart (Büsnau), GermanySearch for more papers by this authorV. Naddeo, V. Naddeo Sanitary Environmental Engineering Division (SEED), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, Fisciano, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorM. Kranert, M. Kranert ISWA (Institut für Siedlungswasserbau, Wassergüte- und Abfallwirtschaft) University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart (Büsnau), GermanySearch for more papers by this authorV. Belgiorno, V. Belgiorno Sanitary Environmental Engineering Division (SEED), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, Fisciano, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorA.C. Romain, A.C. Romain Department of Environmental Sciences and Management, Arlon Campus Environment, Faculty of Sciences, University of Liége (ULg)Search for more papers by this authorJ. Nicolas, J. Nicolas Department of Environmental Sciences and Management, Arlon Campus Environment, Faculty of Sciences, University of Liége (ULg)Search for more papers by this authorI. Sówka, I. Sówka Institute of Environmental Protection Engineering, Wroclaw University of Technology, Wroclaw, PolandSearch for more papers by this authorK.Y. Wang, K.Y. Wang School of Biosystems Engineering and Food Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorN. Kalogerakis, N. Kalogerakis Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Chania, GreeceSearch for more papers by this authorM. Lazaridis, M. Lazaridis Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Chania, GreeceSearch for more papers by this author J. Lehtinen, J. Lehtinen Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, FinlandSearch for more papers by this authorS. Giuliani, S. Giuliani Sanitary Environmental Engineering Division (SEED), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, Fisciano, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorT. Zarra, T. Zarra Sanitary Environmental Engineering Division (SEED), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, Fisciano, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorM. Reiser, M. Reiser ISWA (Institut für Siedlungswasserbau, Wassergüte- und Abfallwirtschaft) University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart (Büsnau), GermanySearch for more papers by this authorV. Naddeo, V. Naddeo Sanitary Environmental Engineering Division (SEED), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, Fisciano, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorM. Kranert, M. Kranert ISWA (Institut für Siedlungswasserbau, Wassergüte- und Abfallwirtschaft) University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart (Büsnau), GermanySearch for more papers by this authorV. Belgiorno, V. Belgiorno Sanitary Environmental Engineering Division (SEED), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, Fisciano, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorA.C. Romain, A.C. Romain Department of Environmental Sciences and Management, Arlon Campus Environment, Faculty of Sciences, University of Liége (ULg)Search for more papers by this authorJ. Nicolas, J. Nicolas Department of Environmental Sciences and Management, Arlon Campus Environment, Faculty of Sciences, University of Liége (ULg)Search for more papers by this authorI. Sówka, I. Sówka Institute of Environmental Protection Engineering, Wroclaw University of Technology, Wroclaw, PolandSearch for more papers by this authorK.Y. Wang, K.Y. Wang School of Biosystems Engineering and Food Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorN. Kalogerakis, N. Kalogerakis Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Chania, GreeceSearch for more papers by this authorM. Lazaridis, M. Lazaridis Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Chania, GreeceSearch for more papers by this author Book Editor(s):Vincenzo Belgiorno, Vincenzo Belgiorno Sanitary Environmental Engineering Division (SEED), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorVincenzo Naddeo, Vincenzo Naddeo Sanitary Environmental Engineering Division (SEED), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, ItalySearch for more papers by this authorTiziano Zarra, Tiziano Zarra Sanitary Environmental Engineering Division (SEED), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, ItalySearch for more papers by this author First published: 26 November 2012 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118481264.ch8Citations: 1 AboutPDFPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShareShare a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Summary This chapter contains sections titled: Urban Wastewater Treatment Plant Composting Plant Landfill of Solid Waste Industrial Activities Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Plants Assessment, Control and Management of Odour in Sensitive Areas References Albrecht, A., Fischer, G., Brunemann-Stubbe, G., et al., Recommendations for study design and sampling strategies for airborne micro-organisms. MVOC and odours in the surrounding of composting facilities, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 211, 121–131 (2008). 10.1016/j.ijheh.2007.05.004 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Arnold, M., (1995) Hajuohjearvojen perusteet (Principles for odour emission guidelines), VTT research notes: 1711. Google Scholar Bonanni, E.A., The addition of chemicals to liquid to control odors, in H. J. Rafson (ed.), Odor and VOC Control Handbook, pp. 8.2–8.17, McGraw-Hill, US (1998). Google Scholar Finland's Environmental Administration Jätevesien Puhdistus (Wastewater Treatment). Available at: http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=317538&lan=FI (accessed 21 January, 2010) (2010). Google Scholar Hobson, J. and Yang, G., Odour mapping using H2S measurements, in R. Stuetz and F.B. Frechen (eds), Odours in Wastewater Treatment, pp. 214–231, IWA Publishing, UK (2001). Google Scholar Hvitved-Jacobsen, T. and Vollertsen, J., Odour formation in sewer networks, in R. Stuetz and F.B. Frechen (eds), Odours in Wastewater Treatment, pp. 33–65, IWA Publishing, UK (2001). Google Scholar Lehtinen, J. and Veijanen, A., Odour monitoring by combined TD-GC-MS-sniff technique and dynamic olfactometry at the wastewater treatment plant of low H2S concentration, Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 218 (1–4), 185–196 (2011a). 10.1007/s11270-010-0634-3 CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Lehtinen, J. and Veijanen, A., Determination of odorous VOCs and the risk of occupational exposure to airborne compounds at the wastewater treatment plants, Water Science and Technology, 63 (10), 2183–2192 (2011b). 10.2166/wst.2011.372 CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Le Cloirec, P., Andrés, Y., Gérente, C., and Pré, P., Biological treatment of waste gases containing volatile organic compounds, in Z. Shareefdeen and A. Singh (eds), Biotechnology for Odor and Air Pollution Control, pp. 280–302, Springer, Germany (2005). Google Scholar O'Neill, D.H. and Phillips, V.R., 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, Journal of Agricultural Engineering and Research, 53, 23–50 (1992). 10.1016/0021-8634(92)80072-Z Web of Science®Google Scholar Rosenkranz, H.S. and Cunningham, A. R., Environmental odors and health hazards, The Science of the Total Environment, 313 (1–3), 15–24 (2003). 10.1016/S0048-9697(03)00330-9 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Ruth, J.H., Odour thresholds and irritation levels of several chemical substances: A review. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 47 (1986). CASPubMedGoogle Scholar Stuetz, R.M., Fenner, R.A. and Engin, G., Assessment of odours from wastewater treatment works by an alectronic nose, H2S analysis and olfactometry, Water Research, 33 (2), 453–461 (1999). 10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00246-2 CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Stuetz, R.M., Gostelow, P. and Burgess, J.E., Odour perception, in R. Stuetz and F.B. Frechen (eds), Odours in Wastewater Treatment: Measurement, Modelling and Control, pp. 3–15, IWA Publishing, UK (2001). Google Scholar van Durme, G.P., Wastewater, in H.J. Rafson (ed.), Odor and VOC Control Handbook, pp. 6.36–6.55, McGraw-Hill, US (1998). Google Scholar Zarra, T., Naddeo, V., Belgiorno, V., et al., Odour monitoring of small wastewater treatment plant located in sensitive environment, Water Science and Technology, 58 (1), 89–94 (2008). 10.2166/wst.2008.330 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Beck-Friis, B., Smars, S., Jonsson, H. and Kirchmann H. (2001) Gaseous emission of carbon dioxide, ammonia and nitrous oxide from organic household waste in a compost reactor under different temperature regime. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 78 (4), 423–430. 10.1006/jaer.2000.0662 Web of Science®Google Scholar Belgiorno, V., De Feo, G., Panza, D. and Napoli, R.M.A. (2003) An 'alternative' disposal for Refuse Derived Fuel. Proceedings Sardinia 2003, Ninth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy, 6–10 October. Google Scholar Brinton, W.F. (1997) Compost volatile organic acids- Production and odorant aspects, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on Composting, Beltsville, MD, 11–13 October. Google Scholar Day, M., Shaw, K. and Krzymien, M. (1999) Composting odours: what can chemistry tell us? Proceedings of the International Composting Symposium, Halifax/Dartmouth Nova Scotia, Canada, 19–23 September, 1999. Google Scholar Derikx, P.J.L., Op Den Camp. H.J.M., van der Drift, C. et al. (1990) Odorous sulfur compounds emitted during production of compost used as a substrate in mushroom cultivation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 56: 176–180. 10.1128/AEM.56.1.176-180.1990 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Eitzer, B.D. (1995) Emissions of volatile organic chemicals from municipal solid waste composting facilities. Environ. Sci. Technol., 29 (4), pp. 896–902 10.1021/es00004a009 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar EN 13725 (2003) Air quality – determination of odour concentration by dynamic olfactometry, Comitè Europè en de Normalisation, Brussels, pp. 1–70. Google Scholar Favoino, E. (2002) Gli odori negli impianti di compostaggio. La prevenzione e la gestione del problema, Emissioni: Gas e odori nel trattamento dei rifiuti, Rapporti GSISR. Google Scholar Haug, R.T. (1986) Composting process design criteria, part 1: feed conditioning. BioCycle, 27, 8, 36–43. Web of Science®Google Scholar Homans, W.J. and Fischer, K. (1992) A composting plant as an odour source, compost as an odour killer. Acta Horticulturae, 302, 37–44. Google Scholar Jiang K., Bliss P.J. and Schulz T.J. (1995) The development of a sampling system for determining odor emission rates from areal surfaces: part I. aerodynamic performance. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 45, 917–922. 10.1080/10473289.1995.10467424 Google Scholar Komilis, D.P., Ham, R.K. and Park J.K. (2004) Emission of volatile organic compounds during composting of municipal solid wastes, Water Res., 38 (7), 1707–1714. 10.1016/j.watres.2003.12.039 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Krauss, P., Krauss, T., Mayer, J. and Wallenhorst, T. (1992) Examination of odour formation and odour reduction in composting plants. Staub Reinhalt. Luft., 52, 245–250. CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Pöhle, H. and Kliche, R. (1996) Emission of odors from composting of biological waste. Zentralbl. Hyg. Umweltmed., 199, 38–50 (in German). CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Schlegelmilch, M., Streese, J., Biedermann, W. et al. (2005) Odour control at biowaste composting facilities. Waste Management, 25 (9), 917–927. 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.07.011 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Scire, J.S., Strimaitis, D.G. and Yamartino, R.J. (2000) A User's Guide for the CALPUFF Disperion Model. Earth Tech, Inc. Google Scholar Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H.V. and Samuel, A. (1993) Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar VDI 3940 (2006) Measurement of odour impact by field inspection – Measurement of the impact frequency of recognizable odours – Grid measurement. Google Scholar Zarra, T. (2007) Procedures for detection and modelling of odours impact from sanitary environmental engineering plants. PhD Thesis, University of Salerno, Italy. Google Scholar Zarra, T., Naddeo, V. and Belgiorno, V. (2009) A novel tool for estimating the odour emissions of composting plants in air pollution management. GLOBAL NEST Journal, 11 (4), 477–486. Web of Science®Google Scholar Zarra, T., Reiser, M., Naddeo, V. et al. (2011) A comparative and critical evaluation of different sampling materials and methods in the measurement of odour concentration by dynamic olfactometry. Proceedings of NOSE2012 Conference, 23–26 September 2012, Palermo (Italy). Google Scholar Collard, C., Lebrun, V., Fays, S., et al. Air survey around MSW landfills in Wallonia: feedback of 8 years' field measurements, ORBIT 2008, Wageningen, Netherlands, 13–15 October, (2008). Google Scholar ISSEP, RÉSEAU DE CONTRÔLE DES C.E.T. EN RÉGION WALLONNE, C.E.T. de Habay, Troisième campagne de contrôle (2009), http://environnement.wallonie.be/data/dechets/cet/10hab/pdf/10_RapCMP_HAB_2009.pdf (accessed January, 2012). Google Scholar ISSEP, RÉSEAU DE CONTRÔLE DES C.E.T. EN RÉGION WALLONNE, C.E.T. de Habay, Première campagne de contrôle (2005), http://environnement.wallonie.be/data/dechets/cet/10hab/pdf/10_RapCMP_HAB_2005.pdf (accessed January, 2012). Google Scholar Muñoz, R., Sivret, E., Parcsi, G., et al. Monitoring techniques for odour abatement assessment, Water Research, 44, (2010) 5129–5149. 10.1016/j.watres.2010.06.013 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Nicolas, J., Craffe, F. and Romain, A.C., Estimation of odor emission rate from landfill areas using the sniffing team method, Waste Management, 26 (11), (2006a) 1259–1269. 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.10.013 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Nicolas, J., Romain, A.-C. and Ledent, C., The electronic nose as a warning device of the odour emergence in a compost hall, Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 116, 1–2 (2006b) 95–99. 10.1016/j.snb.2005.11.085 Google Scholar Nicolas, J., Cors, M., Romain, A.-C. and Delva, J., Identification of odour sources in an industrial park from resident diaries statistics, Atmospheric Environment, 44 (13), (2010) 1623–1631. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.01.046 CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Romain, A.-C., Nicolas, J. and Andre, P., In situ measurement of olfactive pollution with inorganic semiconductors: Limitations due to humidity and temperature influence, Seminars in Food Analysis, 2, (1997) 283–296. CASGoogle Scholar Romain, A.-C., Godefroid, D. and Nicolas, J., Monitoring the exhaust air of a compost pile with an e-nose and comparison with GC-MS data, Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 106 (1), (2005) 317–324. 10.1016/j.snb.2004.07.035 CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Romain, A.-C., Delva, J. and Nicolas, J., Complementary approaches to measure environmental odours emitted by landfill areas, Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 131, 1 (2008) 18–23. 10.1016/j.snb.2007.12.005 CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Van Langenhove, H. and Van Broeck, G., Applicability of sniffing team observations: experience of field measurements, Water Science and Technology, 44 (2001) 65–70. 10.2166/wst.2001.0510 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Kośmider, J., Mazur-Chrzanowska, B. and Wyszyński, B., Odory. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa (2002). Google Scholar Kośmider, J., Ograniczanie emisji odorów. Proponowane procedury licencyjne i kontrolno-pomiarowe. Materiały seminaryjne, Wyd. Ekochem, Szczecin (1997). Google Scholar Kośmider, J., Uciążliwość zapachowa. Metodyka terenowych oznaczeń stężenia odorów w powietrzu na przykładzie fermy norek, Archiwum Ochrony Środowiska 1-2, (1998) 19–32. Google Scholar Krysiak, M., Mikołajczyk, M., Molińska, U. and Nych, A. Badania ankietowe i analiza skarg ludności jako metody oceny jakości zapachowej powietrza, VII Konferencja Naukowa Studentów, Tom 1 (2009) 49–53, Oficyna wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej, Wrocław. Google Scholar Kulig, A., Sinicyn, G., Czyżkowski, B. et al. Identification and survey of the sources of potential olfactory impact in municipal management in Poland. Chemistry for Agriculture, 9 (2008) 549–563. Google Scholar Kulig, A., Lelicińska-Serafin, K., Podedworna, J. et al. Inwentaryzacja źródeł odorantów w gospodarce ściekowej i odpadowej w Polsce oraz ocena ich uciążliwości na podstawie badań ankietowych. Przemysł Chemiczny, 88 (5) (2009) 484–492. CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Kulig, A., Lelicińska-Serafin, K., Podedworna, J. et al. Charakterystyka i ocena oddziaływania zapachowego źródeł odorantów w gospodarce ściekowej i odpadowej w Polsce na podstawie badań ankietowych. Chemik, 11 (2009) 414–420. Google Scholar Kulig, A., Zwożdziak, J., Szklarczyk, M. and Sówka, I., Propozycja metodyki oceny zawartości substancji zapachowo czynnych w powietrzu, Ministerstwo Środowiska, Warszawa (2011). Google Scholar PN-EN 13725, Jakość powietrza. Oznaczanie stężenia zapachowego metodą olfaktometrii dynamicznej, (2007). Google Scholar Sówka, I., Nych, A., Zwoździak, J. and Szklarczyk, M. Zastosowanie badań ankietowych do oceny zapachowej jakości powietrza, Polska inżynieria środowiska pięć lat po wstąpieniu do Unii Europejskiej. Tom 1 / pod red. J. Ozonka, M. Pawłowskiej. Lublin: Komitet Inżynierii Środowiska PAN (2009) 299–303. Google Scholar Sówka, I., Zwoździak, J., Nych, A. et al. Ocena uciążliwości zapachowej wybranego źródła przemysłowego na podstawie badań ankietowych, Chemik, 11 (2009) 400–402. Google Scholar Sówka, I., Metody identyfikacji odorotwórczych gazów emitowanych z obiektów przemysłowych. Prace Naukowe Instytutu Inżynierii Ochrony Środowiska Politechniki Wrocławskiej. 90 (55). Wrocław (2011). Google Scholar Sówka, I., Skrętowicz, M., Szklarczyk, M. and Zwoździak, J., Evaluation of nuisance of odour from food industry, Environment Protection Engineering, 37 (1), 5–12 (2011). Web of Science®Google Scholar Sówka, I., Skrętowicz, M., Zwoździak, J. et al., Ocena zapachowego oddziaływania wybranego zakładu chemicznego z zastosowaniem olfaktometrii dynamicznej, badań modelowych oraz ankietowych, Przemysł Chemiczny, 90 (6), 1000–1004 (2011). Google Scholar Sówka, I., Skrętowicz, M., Nych, A. et al., Zastosowanie metod geostatycznych do interpolacji intensywności zapachów emitowanych z zakładów przemysłowych, Przemysł Chemiczny, 90 (5), 174–178 (2011). Google Scholar Sówka, I., Ocena zasięgu oddziaływania zapachowego zakładu przemysłowego na przykładzie wybranej cukrowni, Ochrona Środowiska, 33 (1), 31–34 (2011). Web of Science®Google Scholar Sówka, I., Skrętowicz, M., Nych, A. et al., The suitability assessment of ordinary kriging in GIS environment to interpolation of the odour intensity values in the area around the selected industrial plant, PETrA 2011: Pollution and Environment – Treatment of Air: The 1st World Scientific Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, May 17–20, 2011. Organizers: Odour, ČSCHI (2011). Google Scholar VDI 3883, part I, Effects and Assessment of odours. Psychometric Assessment of Odour Annoyance. Questionnaires, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, Berlin, Beuth Verlag (1997). Google Scholar VDI 3883, part II, Effects and Assessment Of Odours. Determination of Annoyance Parameters by Questioning. Repeated brief questioning of neighbour panelists, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, Berlin, Beuth Verlag (1997). Google Scholar VDI 3940, Determination of Odorants in Ambient Air by Field Inspections. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, Berlin, Beuth Verlag (1993). Google Scholar VDI 3940 B.1, Measurement of Odour Impact by Field Inspection – Measurement of the impact frequency of recognizable odours – Grid measurement, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, Berlin, Beuth Verlag (2006). Google Scholar VDI 3940 B.2, Measurement of Odour Impact by Field Inspection – Measurement of the impact frequency of recognizable odours – Plume measurement, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, Berlin, Beuth Verlag (2006). Google Scholar VDI 3940 B.3 (Draft), Measurement of Odour in Ambient Air by Field Inspections – Determination of odour intensity and hedonic odour tone, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, Berlin, Beuth Verlag (2008). Google Scholar VDI 3940 B.4 (Draft), Determination of the Hedonic Odour Tone – Polarity profiles, Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, Berlin, Beuth Verlag (2008). Google Scholar BS EN 13725:2003 Air Quality – Determination of Odor Concentration by Dynamic Olfactometry. Google Scholar Copeland, C. (2010) Air Quality Issues and Animal Agriculture: A Primer. CRC Report RL32948. Available at http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/10Jun/RL32948.pdf. (accessed on July 19, 2011). Google Scholar Environment Agency (2005) Odor Management at Intensive Livestock Installations. Technical Guidance Note IPPC SRG 6.02 (Farming). Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). Google Scholar Hayes, E.T., Curran, T.P. and Dodd, V.A. Odor and ammonia emissions from intensive pig units in Ireland. Bioresource Technology, 97 (2006), 940–948. 10.1016/j.biortech.2005.04.023 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Higuchi, T., Masuda, J. and Hayano, A. (2002) Establishment of Quality Control Framework for Olfactometry in Japan, Proceedings of the WEF Odors and Toxic Emissions 2002 Specialty Conference. Google Scholar Emission Standards for Odor Pollutants, GB14554-93 (In Chinese). Google Scholar Environmental Quality Standards for livestock and poultry farms, NY/T 388-1999 (In Chinese). Google Scholar Yu, Z., Guo, H. and Laguë, C. (2010) Livestock odor dispersion modeling: a review, Transactions of the ASABE. 53 (4), 1231–1244. 10.13031/2013.32588 Web of Science®Google Scholar Zhang, Q., Zhou, X.J., Guo, H.Q. et al. (2005) Odor and greenhouse gas emissions from hog operations. Project MLMMI 03−HERS−01. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Manitoba Livestock Manure Management Initiative. Google Scholar Bansal, R.C., Donett, J.B. and Stoeckli, F. (1988) Active Carbon, Marcel Dekker, New York. Google Scholar Boon, A.G. (1995) Septicity in sewers: causes, consequences and containment. Water Sci. Technol., 31 (7), 237–253. 10.1016/0273-1223(95)00341-J CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Easter, C., Quigley, C. Burrowes, P. et al. (2005) Odor and air emissions control using biotechnology for both collection and wastewater treatment systems. Chemical Engineering Journal, 113 (2–3), 93–104. 10.1016/j.cej.2005.04.007 CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Henshaw, P., Nicell, J.A. and Sikdar, A. (2006) Parameters for the Assessment of Odor Impacts on Communities. Atmospheric Environment 40 (6), 1016–1029. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.11.014 CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Karageorgos, P., Latos, M., Lazaridis, M. and Kalogerakis, N. (2010) Alternative approaches to treat secondary sources of unpleasant odors in municipal waste water treatment plants. Water Science and Technology, 61, 2635–2644. 10.2166/wst.2010.211 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Latos, M., Karageorgos, P. and Mpasiakos, C.H. et al. (2010a) Dispersion modelling of odours emitted from pig farms: Winter Spring measurements. Global Nest Journal, 12, 46–53. Web of Science®Google Scholar Latos, M., Karageorgos, P., Kalogerakis, N. and Lazaridis, M. (2010b) Dispersion of odorous gaseous compounds emitted from wastewater treatment plants. Water Air and Soil Pollution, 215, 667–677. 10.1007/s11270-010-0508-8 CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar McIntyre, A. (2000) Application of dispersion modeling to odour assessment: a practical tool or a complex trap? Water Science and Technology, 41 (6), 81–88. CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Nagata, Y. (1990) Measurement of Odor Threshold by Triangle Odor Bag Method, Bull. Japan Environ. Sanit. Center., 17, 77–89. CASGoogle Scholar Nicell, J. and Henshaw P. (2007) Odor Impact Assessments Based on Dose-Response Relationships and Spatial Analyses of Population Response. Water Practice, 1 (2), 1–14. 10.2175/193317707X209777 Google Scholar Nicell, J. (2009) Assessment and regulation of odour impacts. Atmospheric Environment, 43 (1), 196–206. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.033 CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Nicell, J. (2003) Expressions to Relate Population Responses to Odor Concentration. Atmospheric Environment, 37 (35), 4955–4964. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2003.08.028 CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Piringer, M., Petz, E., Groehn, I. and Schauberger, G. (2007) A sensitivity study of separation distances calculated with the Austrian Odour Dispersion Model (AODM). Atmospheric Environment, 41 (8), 1725–1735. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.10.028 CASWeb of Science®Google Scholar Suffet, I.H., Burlingame, G.A., Rosenfeld, P.E. and Bruchet, A. (2004) The value of an odor-quality-wheel classification scheme for wastewater plants. Water Sci. Technol., 50 (4), 25–32. CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) AERMOD: Description of the model formulation. EPA-454/R-03-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Google Scholar Winegar, E.D. and Schmidt, C.C. (1998) Jerome 631-X portable hydrogen sulfide sensor: laboratory and field evaluation. Report to Arizona Instrument Corporation, 15p. 3375 N. Delaware Street, Chandler, AZ. Google Scholar Yu, Z., Guo, H., Xing, Y. and Lague, C. (2009) Setting acceptable odour criteria using steady-state and annual hourly weather data. Biosystems Engineering, 103 (3), 329–337. 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.02.019 Web of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Odour Impact Assessment Handbook ReferencesRelatedInformation