TY - JOUR
T1 - Identifying and tracking key odorants from cattle feedlots
AU - Trabue, Steven
AU - Scoggin, Kenwood
AU - McConnell, Laura
AU - Maghirang, Ronaldo
AU - Razote, Edna
AU - Hatfield, Jerry
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for helpful editorial comments and discussions of the manuscript and feedlot managers and operators for their cooperation. This work was supported through internal funded at USDA-ARS and grants from the USDA NIFA (Grant No. 2007-35112-17853 ).
PY - 2011/8
Y1 - 2011/8
N2 - Odors from cattle feedlots can negatively affect air quality in local communities. Our objectives were the following: 1) identify key odor-causing compounds using odor activity values (OAVs) and gas chromatography-olfactometry (GC-O) techniques; 2) compare odor threshold values from published databases; and 3) track the movement of odors from a cattle feedlot to receptor community. Odorous compounds emitted from a cattle feedlot were sampled on-site, 250 m downwind and 3.2 km downwind using both sorbent tubes and denuders. Sorbent tubes were analyzed by both GC-MS and GC-MS-O and key odorants determined using both OAV and GC-Surface Nasal Impact Frequency (SNIF) analysis, while denuders were analyzed by ion chromatography. Odorant concentrations had a diurnal pattern with peak concentrations during early morning and late evening periods. Volatile fatty acids (VFAs) were the most abundant of the major odorants. Odorants with concentrations above their odor threshold values at the feedlot included amines, VFAs, phenol compounds, and indole compounds. Key odorants at the feedlot were VFAs and phenol compounds, but their relative importance diminished with downwind distance. Indole compounds, while not the key odorants at the feedlot, increased in relative importance downwind of the feedlot. In general, the odorous compounds identified by GC-SNIF and OAV as having fecal/manure nature were similar. GC-SNIF was the more sensitive analytical technique; it identified several compounds that may have contributed to the unpleasantness of the cattle feedlot odor, but its throughput was extremely low thereby limiting its usefulness. There is a need to improve field sampling devices and odor threshold databases to enhance understanding and confidence in evaluating odors.
AB - Odors from cattle feedlots can negatively affect air quality in local communities. Our objectives were the following: 1) identify key odor-causing compounds using odor activity values (OAVs) and gas chromatography-olfactometry (GC-O) techniques; 2) compare odor threshold values from published databases; and 3) track the movement of odors from a cattle feedlot to receptor community. Odorous compounds emitted from a cattle feedlot were sampled on-site, 250 m downwind and 3.2 km downwind using both sorbent tubes and denuders. Sorbent tubes were analyzed by both GC-MS and GC-MS-O and key odorants determined using both OAV and GC-Surface Nasal Impact Frequency (SNIF) analysis, while denuders were analyzed by ion chromatography. Odorant concentrations had a diurnal pattern with peak concentrations during early morning and late evening periods. Volatile fatty acids (VFAs) were the most abundant of the major odorants. Odorants with concentrations above their odor threshold values at the feedlot included amines, VFAs, phenol compounds, and indole compounds. Key odorants at the feedlot were VFAs and phenol compounds, but their relative importance diminished with downwind distance. Indole compounds, while not the key odorants at the feedlot, increased in relative importance downwind of the feedlot. In general, the odorous compounds identified by GC-SNIF and OAV as having fecal/manure nature were similar. GC-SNIF was the more sensitive analytical technique; it identified several compounds that may have contributed to the unpleasantness of the cattle feedlot odor, but its throughput was extremely low thereby limiting its usefulness. There is a need to improve field sampling devices and odor threshold databases to enhance understanding and confidence in evaluating odors.
KW - Air quality
KW - CAFO
KW - Gas chromatography-olfactometry
KW - Odor
KW - VOC
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79959491809&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79959491809&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.04.081
DO - 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.04.081
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:79959491809
SN - 1352-2310
VL - 45
SP - 4243
EP - 4251
JO - Atmospheric Environment
JF - Atmospheric Environment
IS - 25
ER -