Odor frequency and odor annoyance Part II: dose-response associations and their modification by hedonic tone.

OBJECTIVE: Risk-assessment for environmental odors and the development of an appropriate guideline for protection against undue odor annoyance have long been hampered by the difficulties of assessing odor exposure and community annoyance responses. In recent years, however, dose-response associations between frequency of odor events and odor annoyance level in the affected population were established. However, the influence of hedonic tone (pleasantness-unpleasantness) and perceived odor strength (intensity) on the degree of odor annoyance have long been neglected in such studies and accompanying guidelines. In order to close this gap a pertinent field study was conducted in the vicinity of six odor emitting plants, two with pleasant (sweets production, rusk bakery), with neutral (textile production, seed oil production), and with presumably unpleasant odor emissions (fat refinery, cast iron production). METHODS: A standardized sensory method was developed (described in Part I in the accompanying paper) to quantify intensity and hedonic tone within the assessment of odor exposure by systematic field inspection with trained observers. Additionally, exposure-information, the degree of annoyance, and the frequency of general health complaints and irritation symptoms were collected from the exposed residents through direct interviews. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to establish dose-response associations between odor frequency, intensity and hedonic tone as independent variables and annoyance or symptom reporting as the dependent variable. RESULTS: It is shown that exposure-annoyance as well as exposure-symptom associations are strongly influenced by odor hedonic. Whereas pleasant odors induced little to no annoyance, both neutral and unpleasant ones did. Additional inclusion of odor intensity did not improve the prediction of odor annoyance. Frequency of reported symptoms was found to be exclusively mediated by annoyance. The results are discussed in terms of environmental stress emphasizing the WHO-definition of health. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings the existing German guideline against undue odor annoyance was modified.

Odor frequency and odor annoyance. Part I: assessment of frequency, intensity and hedonic tone of environmental odors in the field.

OBJECTIVE: Odors can be evaluated as being pleasant or unpleasant (hedonic tone), but this differentiation was not incorporated into environmental odor regulation. In order to study the hedonic-induced modification of dose-response associations for community odor annoyance a pertinent field study was conducted. This paper covers the first step, namely the development and validation of a standardized human observation strategy for the direct quantification of the frequency, intensity, and hedonic tone of environmental odors in the field. METHODS: Grids with equidistant observation points were located around six industrial odor sources, two with pleasant (sweets, rusk bakery), two with neutral (textile production, seed oil production), and two with unpleasant odor emissions (fat refinery, cast iron production). These points were visited by trained observers, screened for normal olfaction and reliable performance, in a systematic fashion for an observation time of 10 min duration. Exposure-related information from the observers in terms of frequency, intensity (six-point scale) and hedonic tone (nine-point scale) were compared to that of 1,456 residents using the same rating scales. RESULTS: Residents evaluated the industrial odors more intense and more unpleasant than the panelists. Furthermore, for the residents only negative relations between odor intensity and hedonic tone were found while for the observer pleasant odor became more pleasant with increasing intensity. Instead of three classes of industrial odors, namely pleasant, neutral and unpleasant, the responses allowed only for two odor classes, namely pleasant and not pleasant, the latter also covering the neutral category. CONCLUSIONS: The developed methodology has been shown to yield valid information about odor exposure in the field. With regard to different application settings the discrepancies between external observers and affected residents are discussed in terms of different information processing strategies, namely stimulus-based (bottom-up) for the panel and memory-based and, thus, subject to cognitive bias for the residents (top-down).