Comparison of odour emission rates measured from various sources using two sampling devices

被引:39
|
作者
Hudson, N. [1 ,2 ]
Ayoko, G. A. [1 ]
Dunlop, M. [2 ]
Duperouzel, D. [2 ]
Burrell, D. [2 ]
Bell, K. [2 ]
Gallagher, E. [2 ]
Nicholas, P. [3 ]
Heinrich, N. [3 ]
机构
[1] Queensland Univ Technol, Sch Phys & Chem Sci, Int Lab Air Qual & Hlth, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia
[2] Dept Primary Ind & Fisheries Queensland, Toowoomba, Qld 4350, Australia
[3] FSA Consulting, Toowoomba, Qld 4350, Australia
关键词
Odour; Emission rate; Sampling; Device; CATTLE FEEDLOTS; AREAL SURFACES; COVERS; SYSTEM; PONDS;
D O I
10.1016/j.biortech.2008.05.043
中图分类号
S2 [农业工程];
学科分类号
0828 ;
摘要
Two commonly used sampling devices (a wind tunnel and the US EPA dynamic emission chamber), were used to collect paired samples of odorous air from a number of agricultural odour sources. The odour samples were assessed using triangular, forced-choice dynamic olfactometry. The odour concentration data was combined with the flushing rate data to calculate odour emission rates for both devices on all sources. Odour concentrations were consistently higher in samples collected with a flux chamber (ratio ranging from 10:7 to 5:1, relative to wind tunnel samples), whereas odour emission rates were consistently larger when derived from wind tunnels (ratio ranging from 60:1 to 240:1, relative to flux chamber values). A complex relationship existed between emission rate estimates derived from each device, apparently influenced by the nature of the emitting surface. These results have great significance for users of odour dispersion models, for which an odour emission rate is a key input parameter. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:118 / 124
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of emission rate values for odour and odorous chemicals derived from two sampling devices
    Hudson, N.
    Ayoko, G. A.
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2009, 43 (20) : 3175 - 3181
  • [2] Odour Emission from Liquid and Solid Area Sources: a Large lntercomparison of Sampling Devices
    Guillot, Jean-Michel
    Clincke, Anne-Sophie
    Guilleman, Maud
    NOSE2014: 4TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL ODOUR MONITORING AND CONTROL, 2014, 40 : 151 - +
  • [3] Odour sampling. 2. Comparison of physical and aerodynamic characteristics of sampling devices: A review
    Hudson, N.
    Ayoko, G. A.
    BIORESOURCE TECHNOLOGY, 2008, 99 (10) : 3993 - 4007
  • [4] COMPARISON OF EMISSION RATES OF UNVENTED GAS APPLIANCES MEASURED BY TWO DIFFERENT METHODS.
    Moschandreas, D.J.
    Relwani, S.M.
    Macriss, R.A.
    Cole, J.T.
    Environment International, 1984, 12 (1-4) : 241 - 246
  • [5] Odour emission rates from manure treatment/storage systems
    Edeogu, I
    Feddes, J
    Coleman, R
    Leonard, J
    WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2001, 44 (09) : 269 - 275
  • [6] Comparison of field inspections and dispersion modelling as a tool to estimate odour emission rates from landfill surfaces
    Capelli L.
    Grande M.
    Intini G.
    Sironi S.
    Chemical Engineering Transactions, 2018, 68 : 187 - 192
  • [7] Comparison of a wind tunnel and vented flux chamber in measuring odour emission rates
    Navaratnasamy, M.
    Edeogu, I.
    Feddes, J.
    Canadian Biosystems Engineering / Le Genie des biosystems au Canada, 2009, 51 : 1 - 6
  • [8] Laboratory study of odour emissions from areal sources: evaluation of a sampling system
    Leyris, C
    Maupetit, F
    Guillot, JMM
    Pourtier, L
    Fanlo, JL
    ANALUSIS, 2000, 28 (03) : 199 - 206
  • [9] Performance and Emission Experimental Evaluation and Comparison of a Regenerative Gas Microturbine Using Biodiesel From Various Sources as Fuel
    Nascimento, Marco A. R.
    Sierra R, Guido A.
    Silva Lora, Electo E.
    Rendon, Manuel A.
    JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY-TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASME, 2011, 133 (02):
  • [10] Comparison of modelled and measured total CO and NOx emission rates
    Kühlwein, J
    Friedrich, R
    Kalthoff, N
    Corsmeier, U
    Slemr, F
    Habram, M
    Möllmann-Coers, M
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2002, 36 : S53 - S60