Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240

Quantification of odors and odorants from swine

operations in North Carolina
Susan S. Schiffman a,∗ , Jeanette L. Bennett a , James H. Raymer b
a Department of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical School, Durham, NC 27710, USA
b Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park (RTP), NC 27709-2194, USA

Received 23 July 2000; received in revised form 5 January 2001; accepted 28 February 2001

Abstract
A total of 331 different VOCs and fixed gases from swine facilities in North Carolina were identified by gas chromatography
and mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Of these, 203 were found in air samples adsorbed onto Tenax® , 112 were found in air samples
adsorbed onto cotton material, and 167 different compounds were identified in the lagoon samples. The compounds identified
were diverse, and included many acids, alcohols, aldehydes, amides, amines, aromatics, esters, ethers, fixed gases, halogenated
hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons, ketones, nitriles, other nitrogen-containing compounds, phenols, sulfur-containing compounds,
steroids, and other compounds. The vast majority of these compounds were present at concentrations below published odor
and irritation thresholds. Yet human assessments indicated that odors (and irritant sensations) in the immediate vicinity of
the swine houses (and even at distances beyond 1000 ft) were strong. Comparison of the findings from chemical and human
assessments points to the importance of the cumulative effects of hundreds of compounds in producing odor and irritation
downwind of swine operations. Many GC peaks from the samples were too small to allow identification of the compounds, but
their presence may also contribute significantly to the odor and irritation. Several methodological difficulties were associated
with the human odor assessments. Odorous air evaluated in the field was simultaneously collected in Tedlar® bags for
evaluation in the laboratory; however, intensity ratings in the field were higher than those in the laboratory. This is due to the
fact that organic dust (dried fecal material and feed) adheres to Tedlar® bags and the tubing of collection/delivery systems;
therefore, only VOCs from the vapor phase (but not the dust) reach the nose of the panelists in sniffing air samples obtained
in Tedlar® bags. Future collection and measurement techniques need to be developed that can evaluate odors from dust and
vapor phases simultaneously in the laboratory. Dispersion models also need to be developed that account accurately for odor
intensities downwind of animal operations. Finally, safety standards for odor exposures need to be determined that consider
the risk of simultaneous exposure to hundreds of low level compounds. © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Odor; CAFOs; Swine; Dust; Olfactometer

1. Introduction

Citizens in communities with odorous air are con-

cerned about potential health effects, long-term degra-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-919-660-5657;
dation of their environment, and economic impacts
fax: +1-919-684-8449.
on their property (Miner, 1980; Bundy, 1992; Shus-
E-mail addresses: sss@acpub.duke.edu, schif003@mc.duke.edu terman, 1992; Pate, 1998; Sweeten, 1998; Schiffman
(S.S. Schiffman). et al., 2000). An odor is a sensation that occurs when

0168-1923/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 8 - 1 9 2 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 2 3 9 - 8
214 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
an odorant (the chemical that happens to have an
odor) impacts the sensory receptors in the nasal cav-
ity. Odorous emissions from agricultural waste have
raised particular concerns about human health with the
rapid proliferation over the last decade of concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs) (Esteban, 1997).
Odors from animal operations are exempted from reg-
ulation, to a large degree, due to the fact that they are
covered by agricultural rather than industrial guide-
lines. CAFOs house thousands of animals in a small
area which concentrates potential problems associated
with waste management including odor pollution from
gaseous emissions into the ambient air as well as pollu-
tion of surface and ground waters with excess nutrients
(e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus) and pathogens (GAO,
1995; Esteban, 1997; United States Senate, 1997).
The amount of animal waste including manure, urine,
and carcasses produced by these facilities is enormous
with 130 times more animal waste than human waste
currently produced in the US (United States Senate,
1997). In 1997 alone, estimated animal manure pro-
duction in the US was 1.4 billion tonnes; much of this
was stored in open storage structures called “lagoons”.
Odor complaints have risen dramatically with the
increase in the number of CAFOs. Odor sources
include animal confinement houses, the anaerobic la-
goons, and spray fields that are used as the primary
method of waste disposal. The odors are generated
from microbial degradation of biosolids including
manure and feed. Waste from 25,000 animals or more
is dumped into the open manure storage pit (lagoon).
Anaerobic processing of waste in the lagoons leads
to the production of many malodorous products in-
cluding hydrogen sulfide, acids, ammonia, phenols,
cresol, and indoles (Zahn et al., 1997). Setbacks from
confinement buildings and lagoons generally range
from 750 to 1500 ft on average, and do not take into
account the number of animals at the location (NC
House, 1977). Furthermore, some animal facilities
have been sited near dense population areas including
housing developments or shopping centers.
Complaints directed to confined animal operations
generally emphasize the unpleasant quality or char-
acter of the odor; however, a substantial number of
complaints also involve reports of adverse health
symptoms. The health symptoms most frequently
attributed to odors include eye, nose, and throat irri-
tation, headache, nausea, diarrhea, hoarseness, sore
throat, cough, chest tightness, nasal congestion, pal-
pitations, shortness of breath, stress, drowsiness, and
alterations in mood (Shusterman, 1992; Schiffman
et al., 1995; Thu et al., 1997; Schiffman, 1998;
Steinheider et al., 1998; Schiffman et al., 2000; Wing
and Wolf, 2000). Typically, these symptoms begin
upon initial exposure to the odor and lessen after the
odor departs. However, sensitive individuals, such as
those with asthma and allergies, indicate that health
symptoms induced by odorous air persist for long
periods of time and aggravate their chronic medical
conditions.
A report from a recent workshop on potential health
effects of odors sponsored by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) and the National Institute
on Deafness and Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
concluded that there are three potential ways in which
odorous emissions from manures and biosolids may
produce health symptoms (Schiffman et al., 2000). In
the first paradigm, health symptoms are induced by the
irritant properties of the odorants (i.e. the compounds
that induce odor). For a broad range of molecules (or
mixture of molecules), irritancy occurs at a concen-
tration somewhat higher (about 3–10 times higher)
than the concentration at which odor is first detected
(odor threshold). While the concentration of each
individual compound identified in odorous air from
agricultural facilities seldom exceeds the concentra-
tion known to cause irritation, the combined load
of the mixture of odorants can exceed the irritation
threshold (Cometto-Muñiz et al., 1997, 1999; Korpi
et al., 1999). Thus, the irritation induced by the odor-
ous mixture derives from the addition (and sometimes
synergism) of individual component compounds.
In the second paradigm, health symptoms occur at
odorant concentrations that are above odor detection
thresholds but far below the levels that cause irrita-
tion. This typically occurs with odorant classes such
as sulfur-containing compounds and organic amines.
The physiological basis by which sulfur gases or
organic amines induce health symptoms when odor
potency far exceeds the irritant potency is not well
understood. However, brain imaging studies suggest
a genetic factor may play a role since noxious odors
stimulate different brain areas than those that process
pleasant odors (Zald and Pardo, 1997).
In the third paradigm, the odorant is a component
of a mixture that contains a co-pollutant that initially
 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
causes the reported health symptom. Odorous airborne
emissions from confined animal housing can contain
other components such as endotoxin and organic dust
that may induce the symptoms. If a person’s initial
exposure to odors from swine facilities occurs in the
presence of dust or gram-negative endotoxin, he or
she associates the odor with the health effects from
the co-pollutant. Subsequent exposure to the odor in
the absence of the co-pollutant can then produce the
symptoms via Pavlovian conditioning (e.g. Russell
et al., 1984). Odor associations are readily established
and are difficult to extinguish (Siegel and Kreutzer,
1997; Siegel, 1999).
Quantification of odor emissions from CAFOs is
necessary in order to determine setback distances and
zoning ordinances to reduce exposure of neighbors
to unpleasant odors with their potential health im-
pacts. The purpose of this study was to collect and
analyze two types of data including: (1) chemical
identification of compounds found in emissions from
North Carolina swine houses (and their concentra-
tions) and (2) human assessments of the odors and
irritation associated with individual compounds and
the emissions as a whole. No comprehensive stud-
ies have been performed previously in the southeast
to measure the concentration of volatile compounds
and perceived odor levels from swine facilities. The
volatile compounds were identified and quantified
by analytical procedures including gas chromatog-
raphy/mass spectrometry. Objective measures of the
odor sensations were obtained using olfactometry,
which is a measurement technique that uses the hu-
man nose as the sensor for odors. Odor and irritation
thresholds as well as descriptive measurements and
hedonic tone (degree of pleasantness or unpleasant-
ness) were obtained. The results were compared to
previous studies in other geographical regions.
The following points emerged from this study. A
great variety of compounds is found in air (and la-
goon water) in the vicinity of North Carolina swine
facilities, and the vast majority of these compounds
are present at concentrations below published odor
and irritation thresholds. Yet, human assessments in-
dicate that odors and sensations of irritation in the
vicinity of the swine houses (and even at distances of
∼1500 ft downwind) can be quite strong. Comparison
of the chemical and human assessment results points
to the importance of the cumulative effects of hundred
215
of compounds in producing odor and irritation down-
wind of CAFOs. Dispersion models need to be
developed that predict accurately the transport and
diffusion of odorous compounds. In addition, further
studies must performed to determine the full range
of health effects associated with specific levels of
odorous emissions from CAFOs.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. General overview of methods
Two types of experiments were performed to quan-
tify the odorants (chemicals) and odors (sensations)
associated with emissions from swine facilities located
in North Carolina. Odorants were characterized using
gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC/MS),
gas chromatography/flame ionization detection
(GC/FID), and gas chromatography/flame photomet-
ric detection (GC/FPD). Detectors vary in their sen-
sitivities and selectivity (Elliott et al., 1978). Human
psychophysical studies were performed to determine
odor intensity, irritation intensity, and odor quality of
gaseous emissions at swine facilities and downwind.
2.2. Chemical analysis
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in air and
lagoon water at swine operations in North Carolina
were collected and analyzed in order to identify the
compounds present in odorous samples. The VOCs
from the swine houses were preconcentrated by sorp-
tion onto two types of adsorbent materials: Tenax®
and deodorized cotton. Tenax® is a 2,6-diphenyl-p-
phenylene oxide polymer that has been used exten-
sively to adsorb VOCs from air samples (Elliott et al.,
1978; Krost et al., 1982). Textile fibers can also ad-
sorb odorants and serve as a sink for odorants (Travis
and Elliott, 1977; Miner and Licht, 1980). Pretesting
using canisters indicated that a sorbent-based col-
lection approach was necessary to obtain masses of
VOCs sufficient for quantitative study. Extracts of
VOCs from waste water lagoons were also analyzed
by GC/MS.
Eleven samples (six air samples from six differ-
ent swine houses concentrated onto the adsorbent
216 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
Tenax® , two air samples from two different swine
houses concentrated onto cotton swatches, and three
lagoon sample extracts) were analyzed by GC/MS to
identify the constituent compounds. Four additional
Tenax® samples from four houses were analyzed by
gas chromatography with the effluent split 50:50 be-
tween a flame ionization detector and a flame photo-
metric detector (GC/FID/FPD) to compare the peaks
generated by the two types of detectors. Another four
Tenax® samples from 4 houses were analyzed by gas
chromatography with the effluent split 50:50 between
a flame ionization detector and an olfactory detector
(GC/FID/OLF) to characterize the odor quality as-
sociated with each peak. One additional air sample
(concentrated onto Tenax® ) from a recently cleaned
swine house (floors, walls, ceiling, and fans were
power-washed 1 week prior to testing) was used to
quantify the concentration of VOCs in the ambient
air. This sample was selected for quantification to
determine levels associated with best management
practices.
2.2.1. Collection and analysis of Tenax® samples
Volatile organic compounds from air (six air sam-
ples from six different swine houses) were collected
onto cartridges packed with Tenax® as described by
Krost et al. (1982) and analyzed by GC/MS. A total
volume of approximately 320 l was sampled. Tenax®
cartridges were thermally desorbed at 270◦ C and cryo-
genically focused as described by Krost et al. (1982).
Prior to chemical characterization studies, VOCs
adsorbed onto Tenax® were desorbed from the cryo-
genic trap of a Fisons Instruments Model 8360 gas
chromatograph (Fisons Instruments, Danbury, MA)
into a 100 ml gas-tight syringe. The odor of the syringe
contents was evaluated by four trained odor panelists
for consistency with the odor at the swine facilities. It
was determined that the nature of the odor was largely
preserved. This indicated that the odorants were stable
to the adsorption/thermal desorption process.
Mass spectral analysis to aid in the character-
ization of separated constituents was performed
using a Hewlett-Packard GC/MS (Model 5988-A,
Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, CA) operated in the elec-
tron impact ionization mode (70 eV). Compounds,
identified based on mass spectra, were quantified us-
ing the average of response factors measured for each
of 15 compounds and the total volume of air sampled.
Compounds evaluated to generate response factors
were thiophene, acetic acid, 2-pentanone, methyl
disulfide, propanoic acid, 1-pentanethiol, n-butanoic
acid, 2-heptanone, methyl sulfoxide, n-pentanoic
acid, methyl sulfone, 2-nonanone, 1-nonanethiol, and
n-nonanoic acid and were chosen to represent the di-
versity of chemicals known to be present in the air. No
corrections were made for either breakthrough during
sample collection or recovery during thermal desorp-
tion. Thus, the values calculated represent minimum
concentrations.
Gas chromatography with sulfur-specific (FPD)
detection was performed on four additional Tenax®
samples from four different swine facilities to inves-
tigate the presence of trace-level sulfur-containing
compounds from air samples. FPD was necessary
because the levels of sulfur-containing compounds
in the Tenax® and lagoon samples were below that
sufficient to produce a useful mass spectrum (ap-
proximately 5–10 ng). The effluent of the GC column
was split 50:50 between the FID and the FPD, and
the peaks generated by the two different types of
detectors were compared.
2.2.2. Collection and analysis of fabric samples
Two air samples from two different swine houses
concentrated onto cotton swatches were also analyzed
by GC/MS to identify the constituent compounds.
In the fabric studies, the cotton was cut into squares
and extracted with methylene chloride for 48 h using
a Soxhlet extraction device to remove any odorants
associated with the fabric itself. The cotton was then
placed in a nitrogen box and purged overnight to re-
move gross amounts of residual solvent. It was then
placed in a vacuum oven at 50◦ C overnight prior to
being packed into a glass tube of the same size as that
used for the Tenax® cartridges. The bed length was
4.5–5.0 cm. A GilAir-5 (Gilian Instrument Corp., W.
Caldwell, NJ) constant flow pump was used to pull
air through the tubes at flow rates up to 900 ml/min.
Samples were collected at several volumes up to 320 l.
After collection the cartridges were placed in a freezer.
Due to the high water content found in the cotton mate-
rial, the cotton samples were extracted with methylene
chloride, applied to silanized glass wool from which
the solvent was subsequently removed with a helium
 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
flow, and then subjected to thermal desorption. The
extract was analyzed using GC/MS. The odor from
the cryofocused VOCs was determined to be consis-
tent with swine odor, as described above for Tenax® .
2.2.3. Extractions from lagoon waste water
Three lagoon sample extracts from three differ-
ent facilities were analyzed by GC/MS to identify
the constituent compounds. Liquid samples from the
waste lagoons were collected in clean glass bottles
such that no headspace remained. The bottles were
capped and refrigerated until analysis. One liter of
each liquid sample was extracted twice with methy-
lene chloride. The extracts were then combined, and
the volume was reduced to 50 ml using a nitrogen
blow-down at room temperature. A 500 ␮l aliquot of
this extract was loaded onto glass wool and analyzed
as described above for the cotton sample. GC/FPD
was also used to investigate the presence of trace-level
sulfur-containing compounds from lagoon samples.
2.3. Human assessments
Odors were characterized at swine facilities and
downwind by human assessors using six different
psychophysical techniques: (1) odor threshold and
sensory assessments of air samples 12 ft from the
exhaust fans and downwind; (2) odor assessments at
varying delivery rates from Tedlar® bags; (3) scen-
tometer ratings of levels in ambient air; (4) compari-
son of ambient odor levels with butanol standards; (5)
irritation assessments of odorous ambient air; and (6)
human assessment of gas chromatographic effluent.
All subjects in each of the six human assessments
were pretested to assure that they had normal smell
thresholds to butanol using the method described by
Stevens and Dadarwala (1993).
2.3.1. Odor thresholds and sensory assessment of
odors collected in Tedlar® bags
The purpose of the odor threshold studies was to
determine how many times the odorous source needed
to be diluted to reach threshold (D/T or dilutions to
threshold). Ten trained panelists ranging in age from
26 to 47 years (mean = 31±2.58) participated in these
studies. Outdoor air samples were taken 12 ft (3.7 m),
750 ft (229 m) and 1500 ft (457 m) from the exhaust
217
fans of six swine facilities. These facilities were the
same ones at which Tenax® samples were obtained;
additional samples were also obtained at the recently
cleaned facility from which compounds were also
quantified (see Section 2.2.1). Samples were taken
throughout the day from 6.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. Wind
speed, wind direction, humidity, and ambient tempe-
rature were monitored with a Weatherlog® Weather
Monitoring System (Bar Harbor, ME). Samples were
collected in 25 l Tedlar® bags with dual stainless steel
fittings (from SKC Inc., Eighty-Four, PA). The bags
were cleaned prior to use by sequential rinsing with
1 l each of purified water, HPLC grade methanol, and
HPLC grade pentane to remove any potential water
or lipid soluble odorants. The residual solvent and
odorants were removed by placing the bag in an oven
at 45◦ C with a continuous purge with house nitrogen
until no odor was detected (2–3 days). Subsequent ol-
factory evaluations indicated that the bags had no odor.
A clean bag was placed inside a plastic drum with a
removable top that gave an air tight seal when closed.
The drum had two fittings attached to the lid. One
fitting was used to attach the Tedlar® bag to the inside
of the drum, and the other fitting was used to control
the pressure in the air space in the drum surrounding
the bag. The bag was filled with ambient air by pulling
a vacuum in the air space surrounding the bag. The
sampling rate was 5 l/min.
A dynamic forced-choice triangle olfactometer
(Dravnieks and Prokop, 1975; Dravnieks, 1980) was
used to evaluate the gaseous samples collected in
Tedlar® bags. This forced choice procedure is rec-
ommended by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM, 1991). The bag containing the air
sample was placed into a metal drum that was then
pressurized with a one-third horsepower pump. The
pump pressurized the tank to force air out of the bag
through a pressure regulator that was used to adjust
the flow rate. Once the odorous sample left the drum,
it was delivered to the olfactometer, which diluted the
sample. The rate of flow was 3 l/min. The odor sam-
ple was diluted by a factor of three at each of the six
dilution stations using deodorized, dehumidified air.
The number of dilutions to threshold (D/T) at each of
the six stations was: 3, 9, 27, 81, 243 and 729 D/T,
respectively. Each of the sniffing stations has three
ports; one port emits diluted odor, and the other two
218 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
emit odorless air. The panelists were instructed by the
experimenter to sniff all three ports at each station,
starting with the station with the most diluted sample,
and to select the port with the strongest odor (forced
choice method).
Assessments of odorous air in the field were also
compared with laboratory assessments of samples ob-
tained in Tedlar® bags. On 2 days, panelists rated odor
intensity on site at 12 ft from the exhaust fans; air sam-
ples were collected simultaneously in Tedlar® bags.
Subjects wore charcoal masks in the field except dur-
ing odor evaluations. Three hours later, panelists eval-
uated the air samples in the Tedlar® bags delivered at
full strength at 10 l/min from a metal drum in the labo-
ratory. The samples were rated on three nine-point line
scales numbered from 0–8 (Schiffman and Williams,
1999). These included odor intensity, irritation in-
tensity, and hedonic ratings. For odor and irritation
intensity, the scale was labeled as follows: 0 = none
at all; 1 = very weak; 2 = weak; 3 = moderate weak;
4 = moderate; 5 = moderate strong; 6 = strong;
7 = very strong; and 8 = maximal. The descriptors
for pleasantness/unpleasantness were: 0 = extremely
pleasant; 1 = very pleasant; 2 = moderately pleas-
ant; 3 = slightly pleasant; 4 = neither pleasant nor
unpleasant; 5 = slightly unpleasant; 6 = moderately
unpleasant; 7 = very unpleasant; and 8 = extremely
unpleasant. Subjects completed an additional odor
character evaluation form that contained 146 odor
descriptive adjective scales developed by the Amer-
ican Society for Testing and Materials (see ASTM,
1984, 1992). Odor panelists at Duke University have
been trained to detect and evaluate each of the 146
odor qualities. Panelists selected any of the terms that
applied to the odor and rated these descriptors on a
scale from 0 (absent) to 5 (extremely).
2.3.2. Odor assessments at varying delivery rates
from Tedlar® bags
The second method of testing air samples involved
diluting the air collected 12 ft (3.7 m) from the exhaust
fans with charcoal-filtered air. The dilutions were pre-
pared directly in the Tedlar® bags themselves. Bags
were partially filled with filtered air prior to sampling
to obtain dilutions of 1% swine odor, 25% swine odor,
50% swine odor, 75% swine odor, and 100% swine
odor. The odor samples from the bags were compared
with samples from bags filled entirely with deodorized
(filtered) air (see Fig. 1). Subjects sniffed sequentially
from a pair of bags (one containing the odor sample
and the other containing clean air) and were asked
which of the two bags smelled stronger. They rated
the stronger sample for odor and irritation intensity
as well as pleasantness. The samples were delivered
at eight different delivery rates: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15
and 20 l/min. In another trial, an undiluted sample ob-
tained from 1 m above the lagoon was also evaluated
at the same delivery rates. The subjects were the same
panelists as described in Section 2.3.1.
2.3.3. Scentometer ratings
The Scentometer (Barnebey and Sutcliffe, Colum-
bus, OH) is a device used in the field to measure
the intensity of ambient odors in threshold units D/T
(number of dilutions to threshold). It is a hand-held
plastic box with two nasal ports on one end and
six inlets for the odorous air (inlet sizes of 1/32 in.
(0.08 cm), 1/16 in. (0.16 cm), 1/8 in. (0.32 cm), 3/16 in.
(0.48 cm), 1/4 in. (0.64 cm) and 1/2 in. (1.27 cm)) at
the other end which are connected to a mixing cham-
ber. These inlets correspond to 350, 170, 31, 15, 7
and 2 D/T, respectively. Two additional inlets on the
top and bottom allow air to be pulled through an acti-
vated carbon cartridge into the mixing chamber. This
provides a clean air source that dilutes the odorous air
in the mixing chamber. When a person sniffs, air is
pulled simultaneously into the mixing chamber both
from the odorous air inlets and the clean air source.
D/T values are measured with all but one of the six
odorous air inlets closed, and the size of the open
inlet determines the dilution of the odorous air.
Four subjects (ranging in age from 18–30 years)
used the Scentometer to determine odor thresholds
at 12 ft (3.66 m) from the fans and at distances from
750 ft (229 m) to 1250 ft (381 m) at three different
swine facilities. The subjects wore carbon masks be-
fore and between trials and were blindfolded during
testing to eliminate visual cues. Dilution to thresh-
old (D/T) assessments were made as follows. Subjects
were asked to sniff from the Scentometer twice. For
one sniff, the experimenter closed all of the odorous
air inlets (subject sniffed clean air). For the other sniff,
the experimenter opened one odorous air inlet. The
subjects were asked which sample was stronger. The
order of presentation of the odorous sample in a pair
 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
Fig. 1. Diagram of apparatus used for testing the effect of flow rate on odor judgments.
was randomized across subjects. The odorous air in-
lets were opened from smallest to largest in a stepwise
paradigm with repeated presentations as described by
Wetherill and Levitt (1965) for determining thresh-
olds. If a threshold was found with the 1/16 in. inlet
open, the concentration of the odor was considered to
be 170 times above threshold.
2.3.4. Comparison to 1-butanol standards
Five subjects aged 41–55 years living an average
of 1520 ± 44.7 ft (463 m) downwind from five swine
facilities were asked to match the odor intensity level
of ambient air outside their homes to one of a series
of bottles containing odor standards. These subjects,
like those in all of the human studies, were pretested
to assure that they had normal smell thresholds to bu-
tanol (see Stevens and Dadarwala, 1993 for methods).
Subjects were asked to perform the comparison twice
a day (6.30 a.m. and 7.30 p.m.) for two weeks during
the summer. Subjects were phoned to remind them to
go outside and sniff the air. The bottles contained a
219
series of dilutions of 1-butanol in water. Twelve serial
dilutions of 1-butanol were used starting at 10 ppm
butanol with a geometric progression of two: 10 to
20,480 ppm (10, 20, 40 up to 20,480 ppm). This is a
standard method (E544-75) established by The Amer-
ican Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM, 1997).
A trained panel also rated these butanol concentrations
for their odor intensity using the nine-point line scale
described above.
2.3.5. Irritation assessments of odorous ambient air
Irritation, unlike olfaction, can be localized to one
nostril or the other (Schneider and Schmidt, 1967;
Kobal et al., 1989; Roscher et al., 1996). That is,
when an odorous stimulus that is not an irritant is
presented to one nostril and a nonodorous stimulus
is presented to the other nostril, the subject cannot
determine which nostril received the odor. However,
if the odorous stimulus is also an irritant, the subject
can identify the nostril that received the stimulus.
Four subjects ranging in age from 50 to 60 years
220 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
who lived 1400 ft (427 m) downwind from a swine
facility were presented with odorous ambient air
to one nostril and charcoal filtered air to the other
nostril at 4 l/min. Subjects were blindfolded to elim-
inate visual cues and any potential ocular irritation.
Each subject was presented with five identical pairs
of stimuli (odorous ambient air and odorless air)
with at least 3 min between pairs. The nostril that
received the ambient air was randomized over trials.
Subjects were asked which nostril received the odor.
The five pairs of stimuli were repeated three times
with 40 min between sets. Testing began at 7.30 p.m.
when the odor of swine waste was perceived in the
ambient air by the experimenters. Subjects remained
indoors until the outdoor tests were performed in
order to prevent adaptation to the odor.
2.3.6. Comparison of analytic results and human
assessments
Additional Tenax® samples were analyzed by ther-
mal desorption (TD)/gas chromatography (GC) with
the effluent split 50:50 between a flame ionization
detector (FID) and an olfactory detector (SGE Inc.,
Austin, TX). Three subjects trained in odor assessment
evaluated the odor that corresponded to the peaks in
terms of their intensity, character, and hedonic tone
(Schiffman and Williams, 1999). The intensity of
the odor was rated on a six point scale (0–5) where
“0” indicated the absence of odor and “5” indicated
extremely intense odor.
3. Results
3.1. Identity and concentration of VOCs in swine
houses and lagoons
The compounds from the Tenax® , cotton, and la-
goon samples were identified by interpretation of the
mass spectra. The compounds were diverse, and the
samples contained many acids, alcohols, aldehydes,
amides, amines, aromatics, esters, ethers, fixed gases,
halogenated hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons, ketones, ni-
triles, other nitrogen-containing compounds, phenols,
sulfur-containing compounds, steroids, and other
compounds (see Table 1). Table 1 give a complete list
of VOCs identified by GC/MS in this study along with
data from other studies for comparison. However, it
should be emphasized that many GC peaks were too
small to allow identification, and these may contribute
significantly to the odor and irritation of the samples.
In column 1 of Table 1, the compound and formula
are given. The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) reg-
istry number is given in column 2. Columns 3, 4 and
5, labeled L (lagoon sample), C (cotton sample), and
T (Tenax® sample), respectively, list the frequency of
occurrence of each compound in the three lagoon sam-
ples, two cotton samples, and six Tenax® samples,
respectively. For example, acetic acid in Table 1(a)
was found in all three of the lagoon extracts, both of
the cotton extracts, and all six of the Tenax® samples.
Column 6 is labeled “Y” if the compound has been
found at swine facilities outside of North Carolina
(see Hammond and Smith, 1981; Hammond et al.,
1989; Ritter, 1989; O’Neill and Phillips, 1992).
Column 7 indicates the concentration of each VOC
found in the recently cleaned swine house in North
Carolina as determined by GC/MS expressed in
bothparts per billion with milligrams per cubic meters.
Column 8 gives the mean odor threshold in parts per
million with the values expressed in milligrams per cu-
bic meters in parentheses. Values with footnote “e” are
standardized thresholds from Devos et al. (1990) and
are based on multiple studies. Devos et al. (1990) cal-
culated standardized threshold values using a weighted
average of thresholds from multiple studies. Odor
thresholds with footnotes “f” and “g” are from Ruth
(1986) and Van Gemert and Nettenbreijer (1977), re-
spectively; values with footnote “h” are from Billings
and Jonas (1981). When odor thresholds greater than
one order of magnitude lower than the standardized
threshold of Devos et al. (1990) were found, they are
listed in square brackets in column 8. Column 9 gives
the irritation threshold reported by Ruth (1986). The
odor and other sensory characteristics commonly re-
ported in the Merck Index (1996) and a chemical cat-
alog (Aldrich Catalog, 2000) are given in column 10.
An overview of Table 1 indicates that 411 com-
pounds have been associated with swine facilities.
A total of 331 different VOCs and fixed gases were
found at swine facilities in North Carolina. Of these,
203 were found in the Tenax® samples, 112 were
found on the cotton samples, and 167 different com-
pounds were identified in the lagoon samples. In
Table 1, the 157 compounds listed were described as
S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240 221
222 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240 223
224 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240 225
226 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240 227
228 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240 229
230 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240 231

an “irritant” in the Merck Index (1996) or in the chem-
ical supply literature (Aldrich Catalog, 2000). The
eleven compounds found at the highest concentrations
in the sample from the recently cleaned North Car-
olina swine facility were: butanoic acid, acetic acid,
3-methylbutanoic acid, 4-methylphenol, propanoic
acid, 2-methylpropanoic acid, 2-methylbutanoic acid,
vinyl acetate, 4-ethylphenol, phenol, and acetalde-
hyde. The total concentration for all of the measured
VOCs in this sample was 0.602 mg/m3 .
Table 1 reveals a substantial overlap in many of
the compounds detected from the Tenax® and the
cotton extract. However, the reconstruction ion chro-
matogram (RIC) after GC/MS analysis of the Tenax®
showed more of the early-eluting VOCs than did the
cotton extract. This is likely the result of losses of the
more volatile VOCs from the cotton extract during
solvent reduction and solvent removal prior to GC
analysis. Peak identifications of the RIC obtained af-
ter GC/MS analysis of the liquid extract also showed
many of the same compounds as the Tenax® sample
and the cotton extract.
Fig. 2 shows a comparison of the FID output to the
FPD output for the separation of VOCs from a Tenax®
sample when the effluent of the GC column was split
50:50 between the FID and the FPD. Many sulfur-
containing compounds were detected, especially in
the time frame from 0 to 23 min. Pretesting with stan-
dard sulfur-containing compounds (i.e. methylethyl
sulfide, thiophene, and tetrahydrothiophene) indicated

Fig. 2. Comparison of GC/FID to GC/FPD analysis of VOCs from a Tenax® sample. Many sulfur-containing compounds were detected,
especially in the time frame from 0 to 23 min.
232 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
that FPD was more sensitive and selective for
sulfur-containing compounds in this time interval than
the FID. A large number of sulfur-containing com-
pounds were detected, and many of those compounds
gave very small or non-detected peaks in the FID chro-
matogram or co-eluted with other compounds. Each
of the four Tenax® samples gave similar GC/FPD
chromatograms, which suggests that many of the
same sulfur compounds were found at each farm.
3.2. Results from human assessments
3.2.1. Odor thresholds and sensory assessment of
odors collected in Tedlar® bags
The average detection thresholds determined in the
laboratory for 86 samples obtained 12 ft (3.7 m) from
the fans in Tedlar® bags at the six facilities was 221±
26.7 times threshold (i.e. 221 D/T). The mean thresh-
old at the fans of the recently cleaned swine house was
numerically but not statistically lower than the mean
of the other samples. There were no trends in threshold
values for air samples taken 12 ft from the fans with
respect to variation in ambient temperature (0–36◦ C
in the field), humidity (up to 90% in the field), wind
direction, or wind speed. Thresholds were often diffi-
cult to obtain from samples in Tedlar® bags at 750 ft
(229 m) and 1500 ft (457 m) in spite of the fact that
experimenters detected odor at each of the sampling
locations. Only 9.7% of the 93 bags obtained at these
distances contained odorous air that could be detected
by subjects using the olfactometer for which the initial
dilution is represents a D/T = 3. Most of the samples
at 750 and 1500 ft for which olfactory threshold values
could be determined were collected in early morning
and late evening with wind speeds less than 1 mile/h
(little mixing). The mean threshold for samples that
could be detected by panelists at 750 ft (229 m) was
10.1 D/T ± 10.6; the mean threshold for detectable
samples at 1500 ft (457 m) was 9.0 ± 10.1.
On the 2 days when panelists rated odor intensity on
site at 12 ft from the exhaust fans and in the lab from
Tedlar® bags (collected at the time as on site ratings),
the mean intensities differed significantly on odor and
irritation intensity but not unpleasantness. The mean
odor intensity ratings on site were 7.1 (very strong)
and in the laboratory, 5.1 (moderate strong). The mean
irritation intensity ratings on site were 5.0 (moderate
strong) and in the laboratory, 3.2 (moderate weak).
The mean ratings on 11 adjective scales: sour/acid,
like ammonia, sickening, sulfidic, putrid/foul, animal,
fecal (like manure), urine-like, cheesy, sharp/pungent,
and sewer odor, were also significantly higher on site
than in the laboratory.
3.2.2. Odor assessments at varying delivery rates
from Tedlar® bags
Fig. 3a–e show the average odor intensity, irritation
intensity, and unpleasantness ratings at differing de-
livery rates (1–20 l/min) for five dilutions of air 12 ft
(3.7 m) from a swine house exhaust fan (odors were
diluted with clean air in the bag). These figures indi-
cate that the rate of delivery of the odor influences the
magnitude of the intensity and unpleasantness ratings
for the most concentrated odors. With no dilution
(100% odorous air), the average odor intensity rating
was less than 2 (weak) at a delivery rate of 1 l/min.
However, when the delivery rate was 20 l/min, the
odor intensity for the same sample was rated over 6
(strong). The same trend was seen for irritation inten-
sity which varied from an average rating of 1 (very
weak) at a delivery rate of 1 l/min to over 3 (mod-
erate weak) at a delivery rate of 20 l/min. This trend
was minimal for highly diluted odor. The ratings of
unpleasantness showed little variation among the dif-
ferent dilutions, with the exception of undiluted swine
house odor, which was rated more unpleasant than
diluted odor.
The delivery rate also affects judgments of the
undiluted air samples collected above the lagoon as
shown in Fig. 3f. The odor intensity increased pro-
gressively with increasing delivery rate from 1 to
20 l/min. The irritation intensity increased at 5 l/min
and remained elevated up to 20 l/min. The delivery
rate had little effect on the unpleasantness ratings.
3.2.3. Scentometer ratings
Scentometer measurements made 12 ft from the ex-
haust fans ranged from 170 to 350 D/T. When an odor
was detected at 750 ft (229 m) to 1250 ft (381 m) from
the swine facilities, scentometer readings ranged from
as high as 170 to as low as 2 D/T. The percentage of the
78 readings found for 170, 31, 15, 7 and 2 D/T were
10.3, 25.6, 26.9, 34.6 and 2.6%, respectively. At one
facility, the odor level at a distance of 1250 ft (381 m)
corresponded to 170 D/T for all four subjects.
 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240 233

3.2.4. Comparison to 1-butanol standards (i.e. subjects made ratings 78.6% of the time at the
The results from comparisons of the intensity of specified times requested during the 2 week test pe-
ambient air at 6.30 a.m. and 7.30 p.m. with butanol riod). The data indicate that odors were perceived
standards are shown in Fig. 4. Compliance was 78.6% 58.3% of the time. The mean intensity ratings on the

Fig. 3. Odor intensity, irritation intensity, and unpleasantness of (a) 1% swine house exhaust; (b) 25% swine house exhaust; (c) 50% swine
house odor; (d) 75% swine house odor; (e) 100% swine house odor; and (f) undiluted air collected above lagoon delivered at 1 to 20 l/min
using the apparatus shown in Fig. 1. For odor and irritation intensity, the scale was labeled as follows: 0 = none at all; 1 = very weak;
2 = weak; 3 = moderate weak; 4 = moderate; 5 = moderate strong; 6 = strong; 7 = very strong; and 8 = maximal. The descriptors for
pleasantness/unpleasantness were: 0 = extremely pleasant; 1 = very pleasant; 2 = moderately pleasant; 3 = slightly pleasant; 4 = neither
pleasant nor unpleasant; 5 = slightly unpleasant; 6 = moderately unpleasant; 7 = very unpleasant; and 8 = extremely unpleasant.
234 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240

Fig. 3 (Continued).

nine-point scale given to the butanol standards by
the trained panel are given in Table 2 for compari-
son. The butanol level most frequently assigned to
the ambient odor near swine facilities was level 12
(20,480 ppm) which was assigned an intensity rating
of 5.1 (moderate strong) by a trained panel.
3.2.5. Irritation assessments of odorous ambient air
All four subjects could localize the odor of swine
waste to the nostril that received the ambient air on
each of the trials. This indicates that the compounds
in the ambient air activated the trigeminal nerve and
hence were a sensory irritant.

3.2.6. Olfactory descriptors assigned to components

of swine odor
Results from analysis of four additional Tenax®
samples split 50:50 between the FID and the odor port

Table 2
Intensity ratings by a trained panel of butanol on a nine-point scale
Butanol Butanol concen- Mean rating by
level tration (ppm) a trained panel
1 10 0.8 ± 0.2
2 20 1.1 ± 0.2
3 40 1.3 ± 0.3
4 80 1.4 ± 0.3
5 160 1.9 ± 0.3
6 320 2.2 ± 0.3
7 640 2.6 ± 0.4
Fig. 4. Butanol levels assigned to the perceived intensity of am- 8 1280 2.9 ± 0.4
bient air near swine facilities at 6.30 a.m. and 7.30 p.m. by 9 2560 3.2 ± 0.4
five subjects. The levels correspond to butanol concentrations 10 5120 4.0 ± 0.5
as follows: 1 (10 ppm), 2 (20 ppm), 3 (40 ppm), 4 (80 ppm), 5 11 10240 4.4 ± 0.6
(160 ppm), 6 (320 ppm), 7 (640 ppm), 8 (1280 ppm), 9 (2560 ppm), 12 20480 5.1 ± 0.6
10 (5120 ppm), 11 (10240 ppm), 12 (20,480 ppm).
 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240 235

Fig. 5. GC/FID/OLF analysis. Odor descriptors assigned by trained panelists to peaks from a Tenax® sample collected 12 ft from swine
house exhaust fans. The descriptors and intensity judgments (from 0–5 where “0” indicates no odor and “5” indicates extremely intense
odor) are given on the abscissa.

indicated that most of the peaks had unpleasant odors.
An example is given in Fig. 5. The descriptors and
intensity judgments (from 0 to 5 where “0” indicates
no odor and “5” indicates extremely intense odor) are
given on the abscissa. The chromatograms obtained
from the four samples were similar which suggests
that many of the same VOCs are present in all of the
samples. Some olfactory descriptors were assigned
to small peaks in the chromatogram. This indicates
that intense components of swine odor can be present
at very low concentrations in the air. Such com-
pounds would be expected to have very low olfactory
236 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
thresholds. Compounds present in such small amounts
would not provide mass spectra of sufficient intensity
to permit identification. This problem of trace-level,
highly odorous components is confounded by the
complexity of the chromatograms, especially in the
region of 30–50 min where the fatty acids elute.
4. Discussion
The main finding of this study is that there are
hundreds of compounds associated with swine odor
in North Carolina, and the vast majority of these
compounds are below published odor and irritation
thresholds. However, human assessments of emissions
from swine facilities indicate that the odor sensations
and nasal irritation can be strong. Comparison of the
chemical and human assessment results points to the
importance of the cumulative load of hundreds of
compounds in producing odor and irritation down-
wind of CAFOs. Particulates as well as the total
aggregate of VOCs probably contribute to sensory
irritation produced by emissions from swine facilities.
4.1. Analytic findings
The results of this study show that over 300 com-
pounds are found in odorous air emissions from
swine facilities in North Carolina. Many more com-
pounds are present, but the GC peaks were too small
to allow identification. The compounds identified by
GC/MS from North Carolina swine facilities given in
Table 1 are consistent with those found in other stud-
ies (Hammond et al., 1979, 1989; Spoelstra, 1980;
Hammond and Smith, 1981; Ritter, 1989; O’Neill
and Phillips, 1992; Hartung and Phillips, 1994; Zahn
et al., 1997). The compounds identified were diverse,
and the samples contained many acids, alcohols, alde-
hydes, amides, amines, aromatics, esters, ethers, fixed
gases, halogenated hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons, ke-
tones, nitriles, other nitrogen-containing compounds,
phenols, sulfur-containing compounds, steroids, and
other compounds. Acids, phenolic compounds, and
aldehydes were present in the highest concentra-
tions. Some of the aldehydes included acetaldehyde,
n-butanal, 3-methylbutanal, and n-pentanal which as
a group are a concern as air pollutants because of
their reactivity and toxicity (Costa and Amdur, 1996).
The intensity of the odorous emissions from swine
facilities must result not only from individual com-
pounds that are present at concentrations above their
odor thresholds, but from the aggregate effect of
hundreds of odorous chemicals present at subthresh-
old concentrations (Cometto-Muñiz et al., 1997,
1999). There is an additive or synergistic effect by
which low levels (even below known odor or irritant
threshold concentrations) of hundreds of component
compounds lead to odor and even irritant sensations
(Cometto-Muñiz et al., 1997, 1999; Schiffman, 1999).
The compounds found in swine houses for which the
concentrations exceeded the standardized odor thresh-
olds reported by Devos et al. (1990) were n-butanoic
acid, isovaleric acid, 2-methylbutanoic acid, indole,
and p-cresol. The 10 compounds found in emis-
sions from swine facilities with the lowest known
odor thresholds were indole (0.000155 mg/m3 ),
2,4-decadienal (0.000219 mg/m3 ), 1-pentanethiol
(0.000525 mg/m3 ), 2-nonenal (0.000871 mg/m3 ), allyl
mercaptan (0.00126 mg/m3 ), thiophenol (0.00145 mg/
m3 ), methanethiol (0.00209 mg/m3 ), diethyldisulfide
(0.00219 mg/m3 ), ethanethiol (0.00282 mg/m3 ), and
skatole (0.00309 mg/m3 ) (Devos et al., 1990). Of
these 10 compounds with the lowest odor thresholds,
six contained sulfur, two were nitrogen-containing,
and two were aldehydes. The compounds with the
lowest odor thresholds also have unpleasant odor
qualities. Both indole and skatole have characteristic
fecal odors. In addition, 1-pentanethiol, allyl mer-
captan, thiophenol, and ethanethiol all have “stench”
listed as their characteristic odor (Merck Index, 1996;
Aldrich Catalog, 2000). Thiophenol is also described
as putrid and nauseating.
The magnitude of total VOCs in the air associated
with a recently cleaned swine house in North Carolina
(0.602 mg/m3 ) was lower than that found in other
studies. This could be due to the cleaning of the house
or to factors associated with the chemical analysis. No
corrections were made here for either breakthrough
during sample collection or recovery during thermal
desorption. The average VOC emissions for 21 gases
from swine houses in Germany was 11.72 mg/m3
(Hartung and Phillips, 1994). Higher total analyte
concentrations were also found by Zahn et al. (1997)
in air near a slurry storage basin in Central Iowa.
The total concentrations for 24 VOCs at 0, 25 and
100 m from the slurry storage basin were 27.70, 19.44
 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
and 10.67 mg/m3 , respectively. Even higher levels of
VOCs (108.7 mg/m3 ) were reported by Hobbs et al.
(1997) from the headspace of a chamber containing
slurries produced by weaner pigs. Even though the
total magnitude of VOCs found here was lower than
in other studies, it was still sufficient to induce strong
odors.
In the present study, concentration of VOCs onto
Tenax® and cotton at the source of the odors (swine
houses and lagoon) provided adequate levels of these
compounds for identification and quantification by
GC/MS. This method also allowed collection and
analysis of VOCs from both the vapor and particulate
phases. The collection of particulates is important
because dust particles in swine houses contribute sub-
stantially to odor intensity as shown by Hammond
et al. (1979). Identification and quantification of odors
downwind of swine facilities are more problematic
because it is often difficult to capture the VOCs at
adequate levels from the plume. The collection and
concentration of odorous air onto adsorbents off-site
needs further development to provide for quantifica-
tion when odor is intermittent.
4.2. Human assessments of odor
Odor assessments by trained panelists in the field
and laboratory indicate that odors near the exhaust
fans of the swine houses are strong. However, there
were some differences in the magnitude of strength
between field and laboratory assessments of odor
samples from identical locations. The mean intensity
rating in the field at 12 ft from the exhaust fans was 7.1
(very strong) but in the laboratory, this rating of odor-
ous air delivered full strength from Tedlar® bags was
5.1 (moderate strong). This result raises some ques-
tions about collection and delivery of odor samples.
The possible reasons for the lower intensity ratings
in the laboratory are the following. First, fans from
swine houses exhaust both dust and gaseous VOCs.
Organic dust (dried fecal material and feed) adheres
to Tedlar® bags as well as the tubing of the collection
and delivery systems; therefore, only VOCs from the
vapor phase reach the nose of the panelists sniffing
samples collected in Tedlar® bags. The concentrations
of the VOCs sniffed from Tedlar® bags in the labora-
tory would thus be lower than those experienced by a
237
person in the field who directly sniffs the ambient air
containing both dust and VOCs in the vapor phase. A
significant amount of odorous VOCs has been shown
to be carried on dust (Hammond et al., 1979). Second,
it is possible that some compounds may be lost be-
tween the time of collection and time of testing; it has
been shown that air samples transported from a swine
unit to the laboratory lose H2 S rapidly due to adsorp-
tion or decomposition (Elliott et al., 1978). Third,
delivery rates of the odor may also play a role in the
differences between field and laboratory studies.
The average threshold value found for air samples
collected in Tedlar® bags 12 ft from the exhaust
fans using a forced-choice dynamic olfactometer
(Dravnieks, 1980) according to ASTM standard
E679-91 was 221 D/T. This is consistent with Scen-
tometer measurements made 12 ft from the exhaust
fans which ranged from 170 to 350 D/T. These D/T
values probably underestimate odor strength at the
fans, because both methods filter dust particles. The
D/T values found here using a delivery rate of 3 l/min
are approximately one-fourth the magnitude of those
reported by Jacobson and Guo (2000) using a dif-
ferent olfactometer with a delivery rate of 20 l/min
(St. Croix Sensory Inc., Stillwater, OK). That is,
the intensity of an odor sample with a D/T of 250
using the lower delivery rate with the Dravnieks ol-
factometer was equivalent to 1000 D/T using the
higher delivery rate with the St. Croix olfactome-
ter. Cometto-Muñiz et al. (2000) have shown that
while each method is internally consistent, olfactory
thresholds determined by different stimulus-delivery
systems can differ by a factor of four or more. These
data suggest that more research is necessary to de-
termine the optimum method/rate of delivering odors
to find threshold values in the laboratory that repro-
duce the experience of people on and off-site under a
variety of environmental conditions.
Assessments in the field suggest that odor down-
wind from swine facilities has the following charac-
teristics. First, ambient air 1400 ft (427 m) downwind
from a swine facility that had an odor characteristic
of swine emissions was found have irritant proper-
ties. The irritancy may be due to the vaporous VOCs
from the houses and the lagoon, to the dust from
the swine houses, the particulates formed over the
lagoon (see Hammond et al., 1979; Schiffman et al.,
2000), or to a combination of the above. VOCs from
238 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
trees, grass, and motor vehicle emissions may also
contribute to the total load of VOCs and particu-
lates in the air shed. Irritants can induce respiratory
symptoms in healthy persons and may be of special
concern for sensitive individuals such as asthmatic pa-
tients (Schiffman et al., 2000). A second finding from
off-site measurements is that threshold values (D/T)
at a distance of 1250 ft (381 m) can be as high as
170 D/T. These D/T values obtained from NC swine
facilities are in the same range as those reported by
Sweeten (1998) from swine facilities in Nebraska and
Iowa. A third finding is that the majority of intensity
evaluations by residents living 1500 ft from swine
facilities were equivalent to 20,480 ppm 1-butanol
in water. Nicolai et al. (2000) have indicated that
odors equivalent in magnitude to 750 ppm 1-butanol
in water are “a little annoying”; 2250 ppm 1-butanol,
“annoying”; 6750 ppm 1-butanol, “very annoying”;
and 20,250 ppm 1-butanol, “extremely annoying”.
Using this scale, most of the odors recorded by per-
sons downwind in this study (see Fig. 4) were rated
strong enough to be very or extremely annoying.
Future studies are needed to refine the method-
ological issues of olfactometry to reproduce the ex-
perience of persons exposed to swine odors in the
field. These experimental methods can then be em-
ployed to develop dispersion models that estimate
the impact of odorous emissions from agricultural
facilities on neighbors. Dispersion models have been
proposed and/or utilized in an attempt to predict odor
levels and setback distances that reduce odor impacts
(Welch et al., 1999; Cavalini, 1994; Van den Hazel
and Waegemaekers, 1991; Smith, 1993; Zhu, 1999;
Zhu et al., 2000; Leonardos, 1999; Jiang and Sands,
1999; Liu et al., 1995). Computer models and pro-
grams are currently under development to predict
odor levels and setback distances to reduce these
odor impacts (Jacobson and Guo, 2000; Petersen and
Lavdas, 1986). However, dispersion modeling to date
has not yet provided predictions that reach a high
enough level of certainty to estimate odor intensity
offsite of animal operations. While concentrations
of odorants (chemicals) and odors (sensations) can
be measured at the source using gas chromatogra-
phy/mass spectometry and olfactometry, respectively,
dispersion models tested by our laboratory and others
(e.g. ISCST3, INPUFF-2) lack the capacity to predict
with adequate certainty whether an odor is present
offsite (Zhu et al., 2000; Zhu, 1999; Schiffman, 1999).
There are several possible reasons why accurate dis-
persion models for odor have not yet been developed.
First, agricultural facilities have multiple sources of
odor that are difficult to model for a variety of at-
mospheric conditions. Second, surrogate compounds
have not been identified for which there is a one-to-one
relationship between compound concentration and
smell intensity. Third, compounds in an odor plume
are additive and even synergistic with one another and
with dust; yet, algorithms for addition and synergism
of odors and/or dust have not been developed. Fourth,
odors can be detected for compounds at very low con-
centrations (e.g. in the parts per trillion range). Further
research is necessary to develop air dispersion models
for agricultural facilities that perform accurately both
on and offsite, especially beyond 500 ft.
Finally, medical studies must be performed to evalu-
ate the health effects of swine emissions. At the present
time, safety standards (OSHA, NIOSH) for VOCs are
based on exposure to a single compound rather than
simultaneous exposure to 300 or more compounds.
5. Conclusions
A total of 411 compounds have been found in odor-
ous emissions from swine facilities, with 331 VOCs
and fixed gases found in North Carolina, and the
remainder found elsewhere in other studies. Although
each individual compound was found at low concen-
trations, the additive and/or synergistic effect of these
hundreds of compounds in aggregate produces strong
odor intensities. Odor levels off-site were as high as
170 dilutions to threshold (D/T). Emissions down-
wind from swine facilities are not only odorous but
cause nasal irritation as well. The nasal irritation may
be induced by the vaporous VOCs from the houses
and the lagoon, by the dust from the swine houses, by
particulates formed over the lagoon or a combination
of these. Current methods for sampling odor in the
field for laboratory assessment need improvement to
capture dust as well as vaporous VOCs. Dispersion
models need to be developed that account accurately
for odor intensities downwind of animal operations.
Medical studies must also be performed to assess the
health effects of simultaneous exposure to 300 or more
compounds.
 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
References
Aldrich Catalog, 2000–2001. Aldrich Handbook of Fine Chemicals
and Laboratory Equipment. Milwaukee, WI.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1984.
Correlation of subjective–objective methods in the study of
odors and taste. STP 440, ASTM, Philadelphia.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1991.
Standard practice for determination of odor and taste thresholds
by a forced-choice ascending concentration series method of
limits. E679-91, ASTM, Philadelphia.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1992. Atlas
of Odor Character Profiles. DS 61, ASTM, Philadelphia.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1997.
Standard practices for referencing suprathreshold odor intensity.
E544-75, ASTM, Philadelphia.
Billings, C., Jonas, L., 1981. Odor thresholds in air as compared
to threshold limit values. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 42, 479–480.
Bundy, D.S., 1992. Odor issues with wastes. In: National Livestock
Poultry and Aquaculture Waste Management. ASAE Publ.
03-92, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
MI, pp. 288–292.
Cavalini, P.M., 1994. Industrial odorants: the relationship between
modeled exposure concentrations and annoyance. Arch.
Environ. Health 49, 344–351.
Cometto-Muñiz, J.E., Cain, W.S., Hudnell, H.K., 1997. Agonistic
sensory effects of airborne chemicals in mixtures: odor, nasal
pungency, and eye irritation. Percept. Psychophys. 59, 665–674.
Cometto-Muñiz, J.E., Cain, W.S., Abraham, M.H., Gola, J.M.R.,
1999. Chemosensory detectability of 1-butanol and 2-heptanone
singly and in binary mixtures. Physiol. Behav. 67, 269–276.
Cometto-Muñiz, J.E., Cain, W.S., Hiraishi, T., Abraham, M.H.,
Gola, J.M.R., 2000. Comparison of two stimulus-delivery
systems for measurement of nasal pungency thresholds. Chem.
Senses 25, 285–291.
Costa, D.L., Amdur, M.O., 1996. Air pollution. In: Klaasen,
C.D, Amdur, M.O and Doull, J. (Eds.), Casarett and Doull’s
Toxicology, The Basic Science of Poisons, 5th Edition.
McGraw-Hill, New York, Chapter 28, pp. 857–882.
Devos, M., Patte, F., Rouault, J., Laffort, P, Van Gemert,
L.J. (Eds.), 1990. Standardized Human Olfactory Thresholds.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Dravnieks, A., 1980. Odor threshold measurement by dynamic
olfactometry: significant operational variables. J. Air Pollut.
Control Assn. 30, 1284–1289.
Dravnieks, A., Prokop, W.H., 1975. Source emission odor
measurement by a dynamic forced choice triangle olfactometer.
J. Air Pollut. Control Assn. 25, 28–35.
Elliott, L.F., Doran, J.W., Travis, T.A., 1978. A review of analytical
methods for detecting and measuring malodors from animal
wastes. T ASAE 21 (1), 130–135.
Esteban, E., 1997. The confinement animal feeding operation
workshop. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National
Center for Environmental Health. Atlanta, GA.
Hammond, E.G., Smith, R.J., 1981. Survey of some molecularly
dispersed odorous constituents in swine-house air. Iowa State
J. Res. 55 (4), 393–399.
239
Hammond, E.G., Fedler, C., Junk, G., 1979. Identification of
dust-borne odors in swine confinement facilities. T ASAE 22,
1186–1189, 1192.
Hammond, E.G., Heppner, C., Smith, R., 1989. Odors of swine
waste lagoons. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 25, 103–110.
Hartung, J., Phillips, V.R., 1994. Control of gaseous emissions
from livestock buildings and manure stores. J. Agric. Eng. Res.
57, 173–189.
Hobbs, P.J., Misselbrook, T.H., Pain, B.F., 1997. Characterisation
of odorous compounds and emissions from slurries produced
from weaner pigs fed dry feed and liquid diets. J. Sci. Food
Agric. 73, 437–445.
Jacobson, L.D., Guo, H., 2000. Odor from feedlots setback
estimation tool (OFFSET). In: Livestock Odor Workshop I
Handbook. February 2000.
Jiang, J.K., Sands, J.R., 1999. Controlling noxious animal odours:
an imperative at the rural–urban interface — Review. Asian
Aust. J. Anim. 12 (4), 633–641.
Kobal, G., Van Toller, S., Hummel, T., 1989. Is there directional
smelling. Experientia 45, 130–132.
Korpi, A., Kasanen, J.P., Alarie, Y., Kosma, V.M., Pasanen, A.L.,
1999. Sensory irritating potency of some microbial volatile
organic compounds (MVOCs) and a mixture of five MVOCs.
Archiv. Environ. Health 54, 347–352.
Krost, K.J., Pellizzari, E.D., Walburn, S.G., Hubbard, S.A., 1982.
Collection and analysis of hazardous emissions. Anal. Chem.
54 (4), 810–817.
Leonardos, G., 1999. Beyond detectability. J. Air Waste Manage.
49, 582–587.
Liu, Q., Bundy, D.S., Hoff, S.J., 1995. A study on the air flow
and odor emission rate from a simplified open manure storage
tank. T ASAE 38, 1881–1886.
Merck Index, 1996. Whitehouse Station, NJ Merck Research
Laboratories, 12th edition.
Miner, J.R., 1980. Controlling odors from livestock production
facilities: state-of-the-art. In: Livestock Waste: A Renewable
Resource. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.
Joseph, MI, pp. 297–301.
Miner, J.R., Licht, L.A., 1980. Fabric swatches as an aid in
livestock odor evaluations. In: Livestock Waste: A Renewable
Resource, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium
on Livestock Wastes, Amarillo, TX, 15–17April 1980.
American Association of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
MI, pp. 302–305.
Nicolai, R.E., Clanton, C.J., Guo, H., 2000. Modeling the
relationship between threshold and intensity of swine odors. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference, Des Moines,
IA, 9–11 October 2000. American Association of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 296–304.
NC House, 1977. North Carolina House Bill 515, August 1977.
Clean Water Responsibility Act/Environmentally Sound Policy
Act.
O’Neill, 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.
Pate W., 1998. Odor: a public health practice viewpoint. In:
Schiffman, S.S., Walker, J.M., Small, R., Millner, P. (Organizing
240 S.S. Schiffman et al. / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 108 (2001) 213–240
Committee), Proceedings of the Workshop on Health Effects
of Odors: Participant Reviews and Opinions, Duke University.
Petersen, B.W., Lavdas, L.G., 1986. Inpuff 2.0-A multiple
source Gaussian puff dispersion algorithm — User’s guide.
Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory, Office of Research
and Development. US EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Ritter, W.F., 1989. Odour control of livestock wastes: state-of-
the-art in North America. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 42, 51–62.
Roscher, S., Glaser, C., Hummel, T., Kobal, G., 1996. An easy
method for separating olfactory from trigeminal stimulation.
Chem. Senses. 21, 492.
Russell, M., Dark, K.A., Cummins, R.W., Ellman, G., Callaway,
E., Peeke, H.V.S., 1984. Learned histamine release. Science
225, 733–744.
Ruth, J.H., 1986. Odor thresholds and irritation levels of several
chemical substances: a review. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 47,
A142–A151.
Schiffman, S.S., 1998. Livestock odors — implications for human
health and well-being. J. Anim. Sci. 76, 1343–1355.
Schiffman, S.S., 1999. Unpublished data.
Schiffman, S.S., Williams, C.M., 1999. Evaluation of swine odor
control products using human odor panels. In: Proceedings of
the Animal Waste Management Symposium, Raleigh, NC State
University, pp. 110–118.
Schiffman, S.S., Sattely-Miller, E.A., Suggs, M.S., Graham, B.G.,
1995. The effect of environmental odors emanating from
commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby residents.
Brain Res. Bull. 37, 369–375.
Schiffman, S.S., Walker, J.M., Dalton, P., Lorig, T.S., Raymer,
J.H., Shusterman, D., Williams, C.M., 2000. Potential health
effects of odor from animal operations, wastewater treatment,
and recycling of byproducts. J. Agromed. 7, 7–81.
Schneider, R.A., Schmidt, C.E., 1967. Dependency of olfactory
localization on non-olfactory cues. Physiol. Behav. 2, 305–309.
Shusterman, D., 1992. Critical review: the health significance of
environmental odor pollution. Arch. Environ Health. 47, 76–87.
Siegel, S., Kreutzer, R., 1997. Pavlovian conditioning and multiple
chemical sensitivity. Environ. Health Perspect. 105 (Suppl. 2),
521–526.
Siegel, S., 1999. Multiple chemical sensitivity as a conditional
response. Toxicol. Ind. Health. 15, 323–330.
Smith, R.J., 1993. Dispersion of odours from ground level
agricultural sources. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 54, 187–200.
Spoelstra, S.F., 1980. Origin of objectionable odorous components
in piggery wastes and the possibility of applying indicator
components for studying odor development. Agric. Environ.
5 (3), 241–260.
Steinheider, B., Both, R., Winneke, G., 1998. Field studies on
environmental odors inducing annoyance as well as gastric and
general health-related symptoms. J. Psychophysiol. 12 (Suppl.
1), 64–79.
Stevens, J.C., Dadarwala, A.D., 1993. Variability of olfactory thres-
hold and its role in assessment of aging. Percept. Psychophys.
54 (3), 296–302.
Sweeten, J.M., 1998. Separation distances for swine odor control
in relation to manure nutrient balances. Appl. Eng. Agric. 14,
543–549.
Thu, K., Donham, K., Ziegenhorn, R., Reynolds, S., Thorne, P.S.,
et al., 1997. A control study of the physical and mental health
of residents living near a large-scale swine operation. J. Agric.
Safety Health 3, 13–26.
Travis, T.M., Elliott, L.F., 1977. Quantitation of indole and skatole
in a housed swine unit. J. Environ. Qual. 6, 407–410.
United States General Accounting Office (GAO), 1995. Animal
agriculture: information on waste management and water quality
issues. Briefing report to the United States Senate Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
United States Senate, 1997. Animal waste pollution in America:
An emerging national problem. Environmental risks of livestock
and poultry production. Report compiled by the minority staff of
the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry for Senator Tom Harkin.
Van den Hazel, P.J., Waegemaekers, C.H., 1991. Odour annoyance
in a residential area near a papermill. Public Health Rev. 19,
251–262.
Van Gemert, L.J., Nettenbreijer, A.H. (Eds.), 1977. Compilation of
odour threshold values in air and water. National Institute for
Water Supply, Voorburg, The Netherlands and Central Institute
for Nutrition and Food Research TNO, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Welch, F., Murray, V.S., Robins, A.G., Derwent, R.G., Ryall, D.B.,
Williams, M.L., Elliott, A.J., 1999. Analysis of a petrol plume
over England: 18–19 January 1997. Occup. Environ. Med. 56,
649–656.
Wetherill, G.B., Levitt, H., 1965. Sequential estimation of points
on a psychometric function. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 18,
1–10.
Wing, S., Wolf, S., 2000. Intensive livestock operations, health,
and quality of life among eastern North Carolina residents.
Environ. Health Perspect. 108 (3), 233–238.
Zahn, J.A., Hatfield, Y.S.D., 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,
1687–1696.
Zald, D.H., Pardo, J.V., 1997. Emotion, olfaction and the
human amygdala: amygdala activation during aversive olfactory
stimulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94, 4119–4124.
Zhu, J., 1999. The influence of stability class on downwind odor
concentration predicted by air dispersion models. J. Environ.
Sci. Health A 34, 1919–1931.
Zhu, J., Jacobson, L.D., Schmidt, D.R., Nicolai, R., 2000. Evalu-
ation of INPUFF-2 model for predicting downwind odors from
animal production facilities. Appl. Eng. Agric. 16, 159–164.