1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

8/15/2019 1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

1/13

Characterization and determination of the odorous charge in the indoor air of a waste treatment facility through the evaluation of volatile organic compounds(VOCs) using TD–GC/MS

E. Gallego a,⇑, F.J. Roca a,1, J.F. Perales a,1, G. Sánchez b,2, P. Esplugas b,2

a Laboratori del Centre de Medi Ambient, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (LCMA-UPC), Avda. Diagonal, 647, E 08028 Barcelona, Spainb Dirección de Prevención y Gestión de Residuos del Área Metropolitana de Barcelona, DPGR-AMB, Carrer 62, 16-18, Zona Franca, E08040 Barcelona, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 16 February 2012

Accepted 3 July 2012

Available online 9 August 2012

Keywords:Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

Thermal desorption

Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

Odour units

Indoor air quality

Municipal solid waste (MSW)

a b s t r a c t

Municipal solid waste treatment facilities are generally faced with odorous nuisance problems. Charac-

terizing and determining the odorous charge of indoor air through odour units (OU) is an advantageous

approach to evaluate indoor air quality and discomfort. The assessment of the OU can be done through

the determination of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) concentrations and the knowledge of their

odour thresholds. The evaluation of the presented methodology was done in a mechanical–biological

waste treatment plant with a processing capacity of 245.000 tons year1 of municipal residues. The sam-

pling was carried out in five indoor selected locations of the plant (Platform of Rotating Biostabilizers,

Shipping warehouse, Composting tunnels, Digest centrifugals, and Humid pre-treatment) during the

month of July 2011. VOC and volatile sulphur compounds (VSCs) were sampled using multi-sorbent

bed (Carbotrap, Carbopack X, Carboxen 569) and Tenax TA tubes, respectively, with SKC AirCheck 2000

pumps. The analysis was performed by automatic thermal desorption (ATD) coupled with a capillary

gas chromatography (GC)/mass spectrometry detector (MSD). One hundred and thirty chemical com-

pounds were determined qualitatively in all the studied points (mainly alkanes, aromatic hydrocarbons,

alcohols, aldehydes, esters, and terpenes), from which 86 were quantified due to their odorous character-istics as well as their potentiality of having negative health effects. The application of the present meth-

odology in a municipal solid waste treatment facility has proven to be useful in order to determine which

type of VOCcontribute substantially to the indoor air odorous charge, and thus it canbe a helpful method

to prevent the generation of these compounds during the treatment process, as well as to find a solution

in order to suppress them.

2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Detectable odours have a considerable impact on environmen-

tal and occupational health and safety (Heida et al., 1995; Bruno

et al., 2007; Tsai et al., 2009). Several chemical substances, but

mainly volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are responsible for

the occurrence of varying degrees of olfactory nuisances. Most

VOC are odorous substances capable of eliciting an olfactory

response to people (Powers, 2004). Not all odorants make people

react the same way; it depends on the odour threshold, which is

defined as the lowest concentration of a particular compound

where the 50% of the judgments of a human panel are in

agreement with the stimulus difference (Teixeira et al., 2011).

The sensorial methods often used to evaluate odours, namely olfac-

tometry, do not allow the discrimination of the concrete kind of

substances responsible of the odour, as these methods do not iden-

tify the specific chemical compounds that cause the olfactory

perception (Bruno et al., 2007; Muñoz et al., 2010). A thorough

chemical analysis of the air is the only methodology capable of

identifying the odorous compounds together with other sub-

stances that accompany the above mentioned chemicals. These

substances maybe not cause odour annoyance, but they can repre-

sent a health threat (Gallego et al., 2009a, 2011a, 2011b; Scaglia

et al., 2011). The odour units (OU), calculated by dividing the con-

centration of a specific compound by its odour threshold limit,

indicate how many times the threshold limit has been exceeded

(Gallego et al., 2009b, 2011b).

The OU has to be taken into account. However, the analytical

methodology employed has to be powerful enough to determine

VOC in very low concentrations, as some compounds with high

odour impact have very low odour thresholds (Bruno et al.,

0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.010

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 934016683; fax: +34 934017150.

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (E. Gallego), [email protected] (F.J. Roca), [email protected] (J.F. Perales), [email protected] (G.

Sánchez), [email protected] (P. Esplugas).1 Tel.: +34 934016683; fax: +34 934017150.2 Tel.: +34 932235151; fax: +34 932234790.

Waste Management 32 (2012) 2469–2481

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Waste Management

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / w a s m a n

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.010mailto:%3Cxml_add%[email protected]:Lcma.%[email protected]:Lcma.%[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.010http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0956053Xhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/wasmanhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/wasmanhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0956053Xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.010mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:Lcma.%[email protected]:Lcma.%[email protected]:%3Cxml_add%[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.010

8/15/2019 1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

2/13

2007). VOC sampling through active multi-sorbent tubes and a fur-

ther analysis of the tubes with a TD–GC/MS system allows for a

good chromatographic separation and a reliable identification of

the target compounds through their characteristic mass spectra.

Additionally, this method presents low limits of detection and

breakthrough, and high reproducibility (Ribes et al., 2007; Gallego

et al., 2010, 2011b).

In municipal solid waste (MSW) treatment plants, VOC can be

formed and released to the indoor environment either from bio-

chemical reactions related to degradation processes of the present

organic matter or by degradation and volatilization of other mate-

rials treated in the facility. In enclosed MSW treatment plants, vol-

atile emissions to the outdoor air and their associate odorous

nuisance are reduced. However, the levels of exposure to workers

generally increase, making the implementation of supplementary

health and safety programs necessary (Schlegelmilch et al.,

2005a), as poor indoor air quality may lead to a lower productivity

in the workplace, as well as to an increase of personnel health haz-

ards (Harrison, 2007; Je et al., 2007; Domingo and Nadal, 2009; Na-

dal et al., 2009). Hence, determining the odorous contribution of

each VOC to the total odorous charge in the indoor air of waste

treatment facilities is a helpful method to identify, characterize

and evaluate the most annoying chemicals in order to prevent their

generation during the waste treatment processes, as well as to find

solutions to suppress them (Schlegelmilch et al., 2005a, 2005b;

Mao et al., 2006; Mudliar et al., 2010; Muñoz et al., 2010; Ying et

al., 2012).

The aim of the present study is to show the application of a

methodology based on the determination of VOC and VSC air con-

centrations and their odour contribution to the total odorous

charge in the indoor air of a MSW treatment facility. The presented

methodology will be a valuable tool for the implementation of

measures to diminish the emission of the more critic compounds.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Chemicals and materials

Standards of VOC with a purity of no less than 98% were

obtained from Aldrich (Milwaukee, WI, USA), Merck (Darmstadt,

Germany) and Fluka (Buchs, Switzerland). Methanol for gas

chromatography (SupraSolv) with a purityP99.8% was obtained

from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Perkin Elmer glass tubes

(Pyrex, 6 mm external diameter, 90 mm long), unsilanised wool,

Carbotrap (20/40 mesh), Carbopack X (40/60 mesh), Carboxen

569 (20/45 mesh) and Tenax TA (60/80 mesh) adsorbents were

purchased from Supelco (Bellefonte, PA, USA).

2.2. Sampling strategy

The application of the presented methodology was done in a

mechanical–biological waste treatment (MBT) plant located in

the metropolitan area of Barcelona, which has been operating for

10 years and has a processing capacity of 245,000 tons year1 of

municipal residues, composing both a selected organic fraction

(85,000 tons year1) and a waste fraction (160,000 tons year1).

The selected organic fraction is anaerobically fermented in a

methanation process to obtain biogas. After methanation, the

remaining organic matter is composted through an aerobic pro-

cess. The waste fraction (Table 1) goes through a first stage of

mechanical pre-treatment in order to separate the organic matter

from the inorganic materials, and recover the recyclable materials

(paper, metal, glass, plastic). The separated organic matter is then

composted via an aerobic treatment, together with the remainingorganic matter from the methanation (Fig. 1).

The knowledge of the actual and potential emission sources

from the different processes that comprise waste treatments and

their major emitted compounds is a key point to assess the odor-

ous release into the plant indoor air (Schlegelmilch et al., 2005b;

Scaglia et al., 2011). Therefore, five selected locations were chosen

as sampling points in the MBT plant, as follows: 1. BRS (Platform of

Rotating Biostabilizers), 2. Shipping warehouse, 3. Composting

tunnels, 4. Digest centrifugals, and 5. Humid pre-treatment

(Fig. 1). Three samples were taken from each sampling point in

three different weeks of the month of July 2011. Summer season

was chosen for sampling as the high temperatures expected for

this period of the year assured us the worst possible scenario.

VOC and VSC were dynamically sampled by connecting custom

packed glass multi-sorbent cartridge tubes (Carbotrap 20/40,

70 mg; Carbopack X 40/60, 100 mg and Carboxen 569 20/45,

90 mg) and Tenax TA (60/80, 200 mg) tubes to AirChek 2000 SKC

pumps (Ribes et al., 2007; Gallego et al., 2008). Collected air sam-

ples were analysed by thermal desorption and gas chromatogra-

phy–mass spectrometry (TD–GC/MSD) (Ribes et al., 2007). This

methodology has been used in previous studies to identify and

determine a wide range of VOC and VSC in ambient air (Gallego

et al., 2008, 2009b, 2011b).

2.3. Analytical instrumentation

The analysis of VOC was performed by TD–GC/MS, using a Unity

Series 2 Thermal Desorber coupled to a multi-tube autosampler Ul-

tra 2 (Markes International Limited, Llantrisant, UK) and a 6890 N

Network GC System interfaced with a 5973 Network MSD (Agilent

Technologies, Palo Alto, USA).

The methodology is described in the literature (Ribes et al.,

2007; Gallego et al., 2008, 2009b). Thermal primary desorption of

the sampling tubes was carried out at 300 C, with a Helium flow

rate of 50 ml min1 for 10 min. The double-split applied to the

TD system (cold trap inlet and outlet splits of 4 ml min1 and

7 ml min1, respectively) allowed 12% of the tube analytes to reach

the MS detector. The cold trap (15 mg Tenax TA and 15 mg Carbo-trap), was maintained at30 C. After primary desorption, the cold

trap was rapidly heated from 30 C to 300 C (secondary desorp-

tion), and maintained at this temperature for 10 min. Analytes

were then injected into the capillary column (DB-624,

60 m 0.25 mm 1.4lm) via a transfer line heated at 200 C.The column oven temperature started at 40 C for 1 min, increased

to 230 C at a rate of 6 C min1 and then was maintained at 230 C

for 5 min. Helium (99.999%) carrier gas flow in the analytical col-

umn was approximately 1 ml min1 (1.4 bar).

Electron impact source was obtained with electron energy of

70 eV. Mass spectral data were acquired over a mass range of

20–300 amu. The qualitative identification of VOC was based on

the match of the ion ratios of the target qualifier ions using the

MS Chemstation Data System validated software package withthe NIST05 mass spectral library (NIST/EPA/NIH, Nist MS Search

version 2.0 d, April 2005). VOC were verified, when possible, using

retention times of authentic standards of VOC. Quantification of

samples was conducted by the external standard method. Limits

of detection (LOD), determined applying a signal-to-noise ratio of

3, range from 0.001 to 10 ng. The studied compounds show repea-

tabilities (% relative standard deviation values)6 25% (Ribes et al.,

2007), accomplishing the EPAperformance criteria(U.S. EPA, 1999).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Characterisation of indoor air concentrations

One hundred and thirty chemical compounds were determinedqualitatively in all studied points (mainly alkanes, aromatic

2470 E. Gallego et al. / Waste Management 32 (2012) 2469–2481

8/15/2019 1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

3/13

hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes, esters, and terpenes) (Table 2).

The average percent contribution of the identified chemical com-

pounds in all the studied locations is shown in Fig. 2, as there

was little variation in the types of compounds detected from point

to point. Some of the detected compounds are similar with those

reported in the literature as common compounds: (i) derived from

aerobic and/or anaerobic degradation of MSW in biowaste com-

posting facilities and MBT plants (Schlegelmilch et al., 2005a;

Staley et al., 2006; Mao et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2009; Scaglia et al.,

2011), (ii) present in the indoor air of PVC plastic waste recycling

plants (Tsai et al., 2009), (iii) released from virgin and/or recycled

plastic materials (Espert et al., 2005; Dutra et al., 2011), (iv) or

emitted from landfills (Allen et al., 1997; Slack et al., 2005; Dincer

et al., 2006; Chiriac et al., 2007, 2011; Ying et al., 2012 ).

The origin and type of waste treated in the facility would deter-

minethenatureof VOC releasedtotheindoorairof the plant(Chiriac

et al.,2007). Hence, theknowledge of thekind of compoundspresent

in air samples allows us to do an extrapolation back to the original

source of the emitted compounds (Slack et al., 2005), in spite of

thefact that several chemical species can be derived from decompo-

sition processes that woulddepend in an importantway on thereac-

tions that occur within the waste/compost piles and in the differentwaste treatment procedures that take place in the facility. Thetypes

of compounds found in the studied installation mainly correspond

to products of biological degradation processes (Schlegelmilch

et al., 2005a), as the biodegradable fraction of MSW is the main cau-

ser of VOC and odours emissions in treatment and/or landfill facili-

ties (Chiriac et al., 2011; Scaglia et al., 2011). Apart from the

decomposition processes, the detected compounds are also gener-

allyused as solvents, cosmetic, flavourand fragrance agents, butalso

employed in the production of plastics, cleaners, adhesives, paints

and pharmaceuticals (Table 2). Hence, they can be released from

packaging materials, as several solvents are used in their manufac-

turingprocesses(e.g. printinginks,over lacquers, adhesives andvar-

nishes) (Röck et al., 2005).

3.2. VOC concentrations

VOC average concentrations for those compounds with a lowodour threshold as well as those with toxicity or possible negative

health effects are shown in Table 3. Alcohols, esters, terpenoids and

carboxylic acids show higher concentrations in respect to the other

families evaluated. Valores Límite Ambientales-Exposición Diaria

(VLA-ED), the Spanish correspondence for Threshold Limit Value-

Time Weighted Average (TLV-TWA, the level to which it is believed

a worker can beexposed 8 h a day and 40h a week duringworking

lifetime without suffering adverse health effects) and the odour

thresholds of the compounds, are also shown when available.

The results obtained show that VOC concentrations do not exceed

the VLA-ED, as it has been observed in previous studies conducted

in similar facilities (Leguizamón, 2003; Nadal et al., 2009; Scaglia

et al., 2011). On the other hand, odour thresholds are exceeded

for several compounds, mainly alcohols, aldehydes, esters, acids,terpenoids and organosulfurs (Table 3).

The highest VOC concentrations are found in the Rotating biosta-bilizers(287 ± 145 mg m3), which present relevant variability dur-ing the three different days of the three studied weeks for some

compounds (e.g. alcohols, halocarbons, esters, acids and terpe-

noids). In this location, after a separation of bulky material (e.g.

plastic, metal) and paper and cardboard >450 mm diameter,

freshly arrived non-separated municipal solid waste is treated in

order to pre-ferment and break down the paper fraction and incor-

porate it to the organic matter. This aspect is in accordance with

previous studies that have found that in composting facilities, as

well as in landfills, the main sources of VOC and odorous emissions

are found when handling and moving the fresh waste (Chiriac

et al., 2007; Schlegelmilch et al., 2005a).The Shipping warehouse, where the mature compost is piled inorder to be dispatched, presents the lowest VOC concentrations

and low variability among samples (60 ± 10 mg m3). Considering

that the composting process has culminated and the organic mat-

ter is completely converted into compost and stabilized, the mod-

erate concentrations found in this location could be expected.

The Composting tunnels, the Digest Centrifugals and the Humid pre-treatment locations show similar VOC concentrations, 143 ±13 mg m3, 109 ± 89 mg m3 and 132 ± 85 mg m3, respectively.

However, the data obtained at the Digest centrifugals and the

Table 1

Mean composition of MSW in Catalonia. Source: Agència de Residus de Catalunya,

2009.

Fraction Content

(%)

Organic matter 36

Paper and cardboard 18

Glass 7

Light packaging (plastics, tetra bricks, aluminium cans, metalcans,. . .)

12

Textile 5

Sanitary textile 3

Large residues 5

Construction residues 4

Others 11

Fig. 1. Technological process of the MBT facility. Sampling points: 1. BRS, 2. Shipping warehouse, 3. Composting tunnels, 4. Digest centrifugals, and 5. Humid pre-treatment.

E. Gallego et al. / Waste Management 32 (2012) 2469–2481 2471

8/15/2019 1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

4/13

Table 2

Indoor air chemical composition at five locations of the studied MBT plant. 1: BRS (Platform of Rotating Biostabilizers), 2: Shipping warehouse, 3: Composting tunnels, 4: Digest

centrifugals, and 5: Humid pre-treatment.

Compound CAS no. Odour characteristicsa Possible sources/usesb

Alkanes1,1,2,3-Tetramethylcyclohexane 6783-92-2

1,1,3-Trimethylcyclohexane A 3073-66-3 Green, sweet Natural occurrence in chicken and beef meat

1,3-Diethylcyclopentane, trans 69-802-5

1,3,5-Trimethyl-trans-cyclohexane 1795-26-22,3,6-Trimethylheptane 4032-93-3

2-Methyl-3-ethylheptane 14676-29-0

2-MethylhexaneA 591-76-4 Natural occurrence in coffee

2-MethylnonaneA 871-83-0

3,5-Dimethylheptane 926-82-9

3,6-Dimethyloctane 15869-94-0

3-MethylhexaneA 589-34-4 Flavour agents. Natural occurrence in pork

3-Methylnonane 5911-04-6

3-Methyloctane 2216-33-3

3-Methylpentane 96-14-0

4-MethylnonaneA 17301-94-9

CyclohexaneA 110-82-7 Pungent Solvents, cleaners, dry cleaning, solid fuels

CyclopentaneA 287-92-3 Petroleum-like Synthetic resins, rubber adhesives, polyurethane

insulating foam

Methylcyclohexane 1678-91-7 Solvents

Isobutane 75-28-5 Refrigerants, propellants, sprays

Isopentane

A

78-78-4 PropellantsIsopropylcyclohexaneA 696-29-7

Methylcyclohexane 108-87-2 Faintly aromatic Solvents, fuels

n-Butane 106-97-8 Propellantsn-DecaneA 124-18-5 Solvents, plastics, fueln-DodecaneA 112-40-3 Solvents, fragrance agentsn-HeptaneA 142-82-5 Sweet, ethereal Solventsn-HexaneA 110-54-3 Slightly disagreeable Solvents, fuels, glues and adhesivesn-NonaneA 111-84-2 Gasoline-like Fuels, lubricants, fragrance agentsn-OctaneA 111-65-9 Gasoline-like Solvents, fuelsn-PentaneA 109-66-0 Solvents, fuels, propellantsn-TetradecaneA 629-59-4 Mild, waxy Fuels, lubricants, flavour and fragrance agentsn-TridecaneA 629-50-5 Fuels, lubricants, fragrance agentsn-UndecaneA 1120-21-4 Fuels, lubricants, fragrance agents

Aromatic hydrocarbons1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene A 526-73-8 Solvents, fuels

1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 Plastic Solvents, fuels

1,3,5-TrimethylbenzeneA

108-67-8 Solvents, fuels. Natural occurrence in coffee1-methylnaphthalene A 90-12-0 Chemical, medicinal, camphor Insecticides, flavour agents

2-Methylnaphthalene A 91-57-6 Insecticides, flavour and fragrance agents

Benzene 71-43-2 Aromatic Dyes, pesticides, lubricants, detergents,

pharmaceuticals

EthylbenzeneA 100-41-4 Adhesives and paints, pesticides, fragrance agents

m-XyleneA 108-38-3 Solvents in paints, plasticsNaphthaleneA 91-20-3 Pungent, dry, tarry Toilet-deodorisers, mothballs, insecticides

n-Propylbenzene 103-65-1 Solvents, dyes, asphaltso-Ethyltoluene 611-14-3 Solventso-XyleneA 95-47-6 Solvents in paints, plastics, herbicides and

bactericides

p-Diethylbenzene 105-05-5 Solvents p-Ethyltoluene 622-96-8 Solvents p-Propyltoluene 1074-55-1 p-XyleneA 106-42-3 Solvents in paints, plastics, herbicidesStyreneA 100-42-5 Sweet, balsam, floral, plastic Plastic, rubber, resins

TolueneA 108-88-3 Sweet Solvents in paints and inks, foams

Alcohols1-ButanolA 71-36-3 Fermented, fusel, oil, sweet, balsam Solvents, cosmetic, flavour and fragrance agents

1-HexanolA 111-27-3 Alcoholic, ethereal, fusel, oil, fruity, sweet, green Cosmetic, flavour and fragrance agents

1-PentanolA 71-41-0 Fermented, fusel, oil, sweet, balsam Solvents, flavour and fragrance agents

1-PropanolA 71-23-8 Alcoholic, fermented, musty, fusel Solvents, flavour and fragrance agents

2-ButanolA 78-92-2 Sweet, apricot Solvents, flavour and fragrance agents

2-Methyl-1-propanol A 78-83-1 Ethereal, winey, fusel Solvents, plastics, flavour agents

2-Methyl-3-buten-2-ol A 115-18-4 Herbal, earthy, oily Flavour and fragrance agents

2-Propyl-1-pentanol 58175-57-8

3-Methyl-1-butanol A 123-51-3 Alcoholic, fusel, oil, fruity, fermented, ethereal Solvents, cosmetic and flavour agents,

pharmaceuticals, medicines

EthanolA 64-17-5 Strong, alcoholic, ethereal, medical Solvents, air fresheners

IsopropanolA 67-63-0 Alcoholic, musty, woody Solvents, flavour agents, air fresheners

MethanolA 67-56-1 Alcoholic Solvents

KetonesAcetoneA 67-64-1 Solvent, ethereal, sweet, apple, pear Solvents, flavour agents, cleaning products


8/15/2019 1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

5/13

Table 2 (continued)


DiacetylA 431-03-8 Strong, pungent, butter, sweet, creamy, caramel Flavour agents

Methylethylketone A 78-93-3 Ethereal, fruity, camphor Solvents, flavour agents, adhesives, plastics, textiles,

paints

Methylisobutylketone A 108-10-1 Solvent, green, herbal, fruity, dairy, spice Solvents, cosmetic, flavour and fragrance agents,

adhesives

Halocarbons1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 Sharp, sweet, ethereal Solvents, paint and adhesives, cleaning products,degreasers, aerosols

Chloroform 67-66-3 Sweaty, sweet Solvents, adhesives, plastics, insecticides

Dichloromethane 75-09-2 Moderately sweet Solvents, aerosols, cleaners, pesticides

p-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 Strong Toilet-deodorisers, mothballs, pesticidesTetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 Ethereal Solvents, degreasants, dry-cleaning

Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 Sweet Solvents, degreasants, cleaners, dry-cleaning,

refrigerants, pesticides

AldehydesAcetaldehydeA 75-07-0 Pungent, ethereal, fresh, fruity, green Cosmetic and flavour agents, resins

BenzaldehydeA 100-52-7 Sweet, bitter almond, cherry, woody Flavour and fragrance agents, plastics,

pharmaceuticals

HexanalA 66-25-1 Fresh, green, fatty, fruity, sweaty Flavour and fragrance agents

IsobutyraldehydeA 78-84-2 Fresh, floral, spicy Cosmetic and flavour agents, plastics,

pharmaceuticals

IsovaleraldehydeA 590-86-3 Ethereal, fatty, chocolate, peach Flavour agents

Methacrylaldehyde

A

78-85-3 ResinsPentanalA 110-62-3 Fermented, bready, fruity, nutty, berry Flavour and fragrance agents

PropanalA 123-38-6 Alcoholic, earthy, winey, whiskey, cocoa, nutty Flavour agents, plastics, pharmaceuticals,

disinfectants

EstersAllyl ethyl carbonate 1469-70-1

Butyl acetateA 123-86-4 Ethereal, sweet, fruity, banana, solvent Flavour and fragrance agents, paints, adhesives,

cleaners, pharmaceuticals

Ethyl acetateA 141-78-6 Ethereal, sweet, fruity, weedy, green Solvents, flavour and fragrance agents, cleaners,

pharmaceuticals

Ethyl butyrateA 105-54-4 Ethereal, sweet, fruity, juicy, pineapple, cognac Solvents, flavour andfragrance agents, cardboard and

paper packaging

Ethyl hexanoateA 123-66-0 Sweet, fruity, pineapple, waxy, green, banana Cosmetic, flavour and fragrance agents, pesticides

Ethyl isovalerateA 108-64-5 Sweet, fruity, green, apple, pineapple Flavour and fragrance agents, plastics

Ethyl propionateA 105-37-3 Ethereal, sweet, fruity, juicy, grape, pineapple,

rum

Flavour and fragrance agents

Ethyl valerateA 539-82-2 Sweet, fruity, green, apple, pineapple, tropical Flavour and fragrance agents

Isobutyl acetateA

110-19-0 Ethereal, sweet, fruity, banana, tropical Solvents, cosmetic, flavour and fragrance agents,pharmaceuticals

Isopropyl acetateA 108-21-4 Ethereal, sweet, fruity, banana, chemical Solvents, flavour agents, plastics

Methyl acetateA 79-20-9 Ethereal, sweet, fruity, green Solvents, cosmetic, flavour and fragrance agents,

glues, paints

Methyl butyrateA 623-42-7 Sweet, fruity, apple, banana, pineapple Flavour and fragrance agents

Methyl hexanoateA 106-70-7 Ethereal, fruity, pineapple Cosmetic, flavour and fragrance agents

Propyl acetateA 109-60-4 Ethereal, fruity, solvent, celery, fusel, raspberry,

pear

Solvents, cosmetic, flavour and fragrance agents

Propyl propionateA 106-36-5 Sweet, fruity, pungent, chemical, pineapple Solvents, flavour and fragrance agents, plastics,

pesticides, pharmaceuticals

AcidsAcetic acidA 64-19-7 Sharp, pungent, sour, vinegar Paints, adhesives, textiles, pharmaceuticals, flavour

enhancers

Butanoic acidA 107-92-6 Sharp, acidic, sour, cheese, butter, dairy, fruit Flavour agents, plastics, textiles

Dimethyl malonic acid 595-46-0

Hexanoic acidA 142-62-1 Sour, fatty, sweaty, cheese Flavour and fragrance agents, plastics

Isovaleric acidA

503-74-2 Sour, sweaty, cheese, stinky feet, dairy, tropical Cosmetic, flavour and fragrance agents, plastics,adhesives, pharmaceuticals

Propanoic acidA 79-09-4 Pungent, acidic, cheesy, vinegar, dairy Plastics, preservatives, pharmaceuticals

Terpenoids4-CareneA 29050-33-7

CampheneA 79-92-5 Woody, herbal, minty, citrus, green, spicy Flavour and fragrance agents, camphor, insecticides

D-LimoneneA 5989-27-5 Citrus, orange, fresh, sweet Flavour and fragrance agents, pharmaceuticals, air

fresheners

EucalyptolA 470-82-6 Eucalyptus, herbal, camphor Flavour and fragrance agents, pharmaceuticals,

insecticides

m-Menth-1-ene 13828-31-4 Flavour and fragrance agents

p-CymeneA 99-87-6 Citrus, fresh, woody, spicy Flavour and fragrance agentsSabineneA 3387-41-5 Citrus, woody, pine, spicy Flavour and fragrance agents

TerpinoleneA 586-62-9 Citrus, fresh, woody, pine, sweet Flavour and fragrance agents

a-PhellandreneA 99-83-2 Citrus, fresh, woody, herbal, green Flavour and fragrance agentsa-PineneA 80-56-8 Fresh, woody, pine, sweet, earthy Flavour and fragrance agents, solvents, resinsb-MyrceneA 123-35-3 Citrus, woody, spicy, peppery, balsam, plastic Flavour and fragrance agents, pharmaceuticals

(continued on next page)


8/15/2019 1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

6/13

Humid pre-treatment present more variability during the studied

days. The Digest Centrifugals and the Humid pre-treatment are lo-

cated in the same building, without compartmentation. There are 6

digest centrifugals used to diminish the water content in the

remaining organic matter from the anaerobic digestion prior to

its aerobic composting process. Not all and the same digest centrif-

ugals were operating during the three sampling days (generally

only two centrifugals were functioning simultaneously); hence,

the observed variability could be assigned to this fact.

In the Composting tunnels the variability of the obtained data islower, showing relevant concentrations of ketones, esters and

acids. These types of oxygen-based compounds are known to be

originated fromincomplete aerobic processes in the organic matter

fermentation stage (Leach et al., 1999; Statheropoulos et al., 2005).

Methyl ethyl ketone accounted for the 73 ± 8% of all quantified ke-

tones, as it has been observed in a previous study ( He et al., 2010).

Additionally, the obtained concentrations in the composting tun-

nels, with BTEX and styrene average values of 1395 ± 198lg m3,are of the same order of magnitude with those obtained several

years ago in the same facility, 950.7 lg m3 (Leguizamón, 2003),as well as those obtained in a similar facility, that presented BTEX

and styrene concentrations of 1087.3 lg m3 (Nadal et al., 2009).BTEX and styrene concentrations in the five studied locations

are evaluated at 62–71% of all quantified aromatic concentrations,

as it has been observed in previous studies, where these emissions

in MSW decomposition have been found to be the most important

among aromatic compounds releases (Staley et al., 2006). On the

other hand, limonene, as already observed in earlier waste treat-ment studies (Heida et al., 1995; Staley et al., 2006; Bruno et al.,

2007; He et al., 2010), was one of the most concentrated com-

pounds in all studied locations, with concentrations ranging from

2 to 56 mg m3, only exceeded by ethanol (11–238 mg m3). Lim-

onene and terpenoids can be derived from household fragrance

products (e.g. air fresheners, detergents), however, an important

release of these compounds can come through the emission of

plant and vegetable waste as well as from the degradation pro-

cesses of the organic matter (Páxeus, 2000; Chiriac et al., 2007;

He et al., 2010; Scaglia et al., 2011).

Halocarbon concentrations were quite variable in the Rotating

biostabilizers, the Digest Centrifugals and the Humid pre-treat-

ment. As an example, tetrachloroethylene concentrations in the

Rotating biostabilizers were 424, 362 and 4786 lg m3

the 14, 18

Table 2 (continued)


b-PineneA 127-91-3 Fresh, woody, pine, spicy, resinous, green Flavour and fragrance agents, solvents, resins

b-ThujeneA 58037-87-9

c-TerpineneA 99-85-4 Citrus, woody, oily, tropical, herbal Flavour and fragrance agents

OrganosulfursCarbon disulfide 75-15-0 Strong, disagreeable Rubbers, textiles, insecticides

Dimethyldisulfide A 624-92-0 Sulphurous, onion, vegetable, cabbage Flavour agents

DimethylsulfideA 75-18-3 Sulphurous, onion, sweet corn, vegetable,

cabbage, green, wild radish

Cosmetic, flavour and fragrance agents

MethylthioacetateA 1534-08-3 Sulphurous, eggy, cheese, dairy, vegetable,

cabbage

Flavour agents

Ethers1,2-Epoxybutane 106-88-7 Unpleasant, ethereal Plastics

tert -Butyl ethyl ether 637-92-3 Terpene-like Gasolinetert -Butyl methyl ether 1634-04-4 Minty, ethereal Gasoline, solvents, flavour agents

Furans2-PentylfuranA 3777-69-3 Fruity, green, earthy, waxy, metallic Flavour and fragrance agents

Tetrahydrofuran 109-99-9 Food additive, solvent, textiles, plastics

Others1-Methoxy-2-propanol 107-98-2 Pleasant Solvents, paints, cosmetic and fragrance agents

Acetonitrile 75-05-8 Solvents, rubber, resins, pharmaceuticals

Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane 6783-92-2 Varnish, oil/waxes, rubber, silicones, personal care

products

p-Trimethylsiloxylphenyl-bis(trimethylsilyloxy)ethane

N/Ac

2,4,4-Trimethyl-1-pentene 107-40-4 Gasoline-like Plastic, rubber

a Source: The Good Scent Company (http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com ).b Source: The Good Scent Company (http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com ) and Chemicalland21 (www.chemicalland21.com).c Not available.

A Natural occurrence in plants and/or animals.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Average

F a m i l y ( % )

Others

Furans

Ethers

Organosulfurs

Terpenoids

Ac ids

Esters

Aldehydes

Halocarbons

Ketones

Alcohols

Aromatic

hydrocarbons

Alkanes

Fig. 2. VOC families’ distribution for all compounds identified qualitatively.

Percentage of compounds of each family in respect to all compounds identified.


http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/http://www.chemicalland21.com/http://www.chemicalland21.com/http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/

8/15/2019 1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

7/13

Table 3

Average ± standard deviation of VOC concentrations (lg m3) found in the different sampling locations (n = 3, corresponding to the days 14, 18 and 25 July 2011). Concentrations

with grey shading exceed the odour threshold of the compound.

(continued on next page)


8/15/2019 1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

8/13

and 25 of July 2011, respectively. These compounds can be re-

leased from chlorinated materials in the MSW (Leach et al.,

1999), such as paints, adhesives, plastics, aerosols, dry cleaning

agents and pesticides (Allen et al., 1997; Chiriac et al., 2007; He

et al., 2010). It has been observed that VOC emissions vary depend-

ing on the origin and the type of the waste, as well as of the partic-

ular conditions existing within the waste bundle (Slack et al., 2005;

Chiriac et al., 2007). Hence, the variety in the nature of the muni-

cipal solid waste that arrives to the facility can induce the random

halocarbon concentrations found, mainly in the Rotating

biostabilizers.

The correlation of the different quantified compounds was ana-

lysed by a correlation coefficient (r 2) matrix. As there were 86

quantified compounds and a relevant portion of them correlated

a Source: ‘‘Compilations of odour threshold values in air and water’’, L.J. van Gemert (TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute). Boelens Aroma Chemicals InformationService (BACIS). The Netherlands (2003); ‘‘Odor Thresholds for Chemicals with Established Occupational Health Standards’’ American Industrial Hygiene Association. USA

(2009); ‘‘Reference Guide to Odor Thresholds for Hazardous Air Pollutants Listed in the CleanAir Act Amendments of 1990’’. EPA/600/R-92/047 (2009); and ‘‘Measurement of

odor threshold by triangle odor bag method’’, Y. Nagata. Odor Measurement Review, 118–127, Japan Ministry of Environment (2003).b Valor Límite Ambiental-Exposición Diaria: the Spanish correspondence for Threshold Limit Value-Time Weighted Average (TLV-TWA).c Value not determined.d As TLV-TWA.e As VLA-EC: Valor Límite Ambiental-Exposición de corta duración (maximum of 15 min during the daily exposure).f Proposed value.

Table 3 (continued)


8/15/2019 1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

9/13

with each other, the correlations were evaluated by family groups

(Table 4). Correlation coefficients with values over 0.800 were

examined, all with a high significance (F-Snedecor, p < 0.001).The high correlation between the indoor air family concentrations

of alkanes, aromatic hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes, esters and

ethers, is good evidence that the emissions of these compoundscomefrom the same source, as it had been observed in a study con-

ducted in a landfill, where aromatic hydrocarbons and non-haloge-

nated aliphatic hydrocarbons correlated well with each other due

to their similar origin. In that study, however, chlorinated com-

pounds seemed to have distinct sources, as generally did not corre-

late strongly with the other evaluated families (Scheutz et al.,

2008). As mentioned before, halocarbon possible origins include

aerosols, paint removers, dry cleaners, foams, paints and varnishes

among others, a type of waste that is resistant to biodegradation

(Statheropoulos et al., 2005; Scaglia et al., 2011). This aspect may

be the reason for their lower correlation coefficients observed in

the present study.

On the other hand, ketones, carboxylic acids, terpenoids,

organosulfurs and furans do not correlate substantially with otherfamilies. Furthermore, benzene concentrations do not correlate

with any other compound quantified; an aspect that has been ob-

served in previous studies conducted in landfills (Kim and Kim,

2002; Kim et al., 2008). This lack of correlation was reasoned to

be caused by the different possible origins of aromatics in landfills

in respect to residential, commercial and industrial areas

(Durmusoglu et al., 2010), as well as from motor vehicle sources,

where benzene vs. hydrocarbons correlations can be used as

sensitive indicators of engines exhausts (Kim and Kim, 2002;

Dincer et al., 2006).

3.3. Odour charge determination

In several research evaluations, good correlations have been ob-served between VOC concentrations and OU determined through

olfactometry (Schlegelmilch et al., 2005a; Dincer et al., 2006; Sca-

glia et al., 2011), corroborating that VOC are the main responsible

of the odorous perception. As a working hypothesis, the overall

odour concentration, determined as odour units, has been esti-

mated to be the addition of the odour units corresponding to the

single species determined, assuming the superposition of the indi-

vidual odorous concentrations (Schauberger et al., 2011). The OU

for each compound and family evaluated in the five studied loca-

tions are presented in Table 5. OU, and consequently the total

odorous charge, could only be calculated for the chemical com-

pounds that had odour thresholds available. Hence, if a concrete

compound with no odour threshold defined contributes in an

important way to the odour burden, an underestimation of theodorous nuisance can be achieved (Schauberger et al., 2011).

Accordingly, more research has to be done in order to determine

the odour threshold for the maximum number of chemical sub-

stances possible, especially those with considerable odorous

properties.

Total calculated odour units in the five sampling points range

between 1166 and 27,791 OU, depending on the day and samplinglocation (Table 5). That is in agreement with the range of several

thousands to several 10,000 OU m3 that can be found in exhaust

air from composting processes (Schlegelmilch et al., 2005a), and

the30,000 OU m3 and 5000OU m3 that were determined in

the initial and intermediate (28 days) gaseous samples from a

composting process (Scaglia et al., 2011).

Esters, carboxylic acids and aldehydes are the families that

contribute in a greater part to OU (Fig. 3), as already observed in

a previous study (Dincer et al., 2006). From these families, 21% of

the evaluated compounds in respect to OU have odour thresholds

below 1 lg m3. Additionally, 37%, 26% and 16% of the compoundshave odour thresholds between 1 and 10lg m3, 10 and30lg m3, and above 30lg m3, respectively (Table 3). These

families, together with some other compounds (e.g. 2-methyl-naphthalene, naphthalene, eucalyptol, dimethyldisulfide and

dimethylsulfide, all with odour thresholds

8/15/2019 1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

10/13

Table 5

Odour units (OU) in each sampling location.

Compound Odour units (OU)

Rotating biostabilizers Shipping warehouse Composting tunnels Digest centrifugals

14 July

2011

18 July

2011

25 July

2011

14 July

2011

18 July

2011

25 July

2011

14 July

2011

18 July

2011

25 July

2011

14 July

2011

18 July

2011

25

20

Aromatic hydrocarbons1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 4.1 1.7 8.2 –a – – 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.1 – 2.

2-Methylnaphthalene 1.0 – 132 – – 19 1.4 3.5 12 12 5.2 7.

Ethylbenzene – – 1.7 – – – – – – – – –

m + p-Xylene 1.2 1.0 2.6 – – – – – – – – 1.

Naphthalene 2.5 1.8 14 1.4 1.9 1.9 2.2 4.4 2.8 1.4 1.2 2. p-Diethylbenzene 21 9.7 32 2.8 2.6 1.7 6.7 4.7 6.0 4.6 1.4 10 p-Ethyltoluene 9.6 3.4 20 1.3 1.1 1.0 2.9 2.6 3.2 2.4 – 6.Styrene 8.1 9.5 13 2.6 4.0 2.2 5.8 9.7 5.7 3.9 1.1 8.

Total OU aromatic

hydrocarbons

45 27 224 8.1 9.6 26 21 26 31 25 8.9 38

Alcohols1-Butanol 1.2 1.6 4.2 – – – – 2.2 1.4 – – 2.

1-Hexanol 8.9 5.5 14 2.0 2.2 1.7 4.1 11 4.7 4.3 – 6.

1-Propanol 5.8 9.5 26 2.1 3.2 2.9 4.0 9.5 9.7 2.9 – 12

2-Butanol 6.3 3.9 2.2 3.5 3.9 – 3.5 6.2 – 2.2 – –

2-Methyl-1-propanol 22 5.5 36 4.9 4.2 3.0 8.1 13 8.9 4.5 1.4 10

Ethanol 57 53 119 17 17 12 37 42 34 24 5.6 50

Total OU alcohols 101 79 201 30 30 20 57 84 59 38 7.0 81

KetonesMethylethylketone – – 1.1 – – – – – – – – –

Methylisobutylketone 1.4 1.2 2.8 – – – – – – – – 1.

Total OU Ketones 1.4 1.2 3.9 – – – – – – – – 1.

AldehydesAcetaldehyde 1282 1237 1462 418 405 274 538 801 729 421 173 86

Benzaldehyde 16 25 43 9.3 13 9.2 19 54 22 12 10 33

Hexanal 4.9 7.0 7.7 1.9 2.9 1.6 3.6 6.9 5.2 1.5 – 5.

Isobutyraldehyde 2.4 5.5 7.3 1.8 2.9 1.7 2.4 4.4 4.4 – – 4.

Isovaleraldehyde 24 118 69 29 33 17 51 63 47 10 4.0 46

Pentanal – 1.8 – – – – 1.0 1.9 1.5 – – 1.

Propanal 35 25 47 5.5 6.5 4.7 9.3 8.7 9.6 5.0 – 10

Total OU aldehydes 1364 1419 1636 466 463 308 624 940 819 450 187 96

EstersEthyl acetate 1.5 – 2.9 – – – – – – – – –

Ethyl butyrate 9353 9509 21,253 2598 2596 2641 5963 7830 6452 3199 863 84

Ethyl hexanoate 3.4 1.7 6.2 – – – – – – – – 2.

Ethyl isovalerate 75 107 153 20 22 16 67 62 52 38 3.7 70

Ethyl propionate 65 64 200 21 23 16 38 49 55 21 3.5 57

Ethyl valerate 23 30 27 – – – – – – – – –Methyl butyrate 2.6 3.9 7.4 1.2 1.6 1.3 2.5 3.4 2.8 1.2 – 2.

Propyl acetate 2.9 4.3 21 – 1.0 1.3 1.6 3.1 4.4 – – 5.

Total OU esters 9526 9720 21,671 2640 2644 2676 6072 7948 6566 3259 870 85

AcidsAcetic acid 23 42 77 28 30 34 52 57 45 42 5.3 40

Butanoic acid 873 1007 3169 1019 815 1354 903 1423 2257 636 – 14

Hexanoic acid 60 43 301 13 15 11 38 33 60 28 6.7 75

Propanoic acid 54 20 277 35 39 90 41 45 135 30 – 10

Total OU acids 1010 1112 3824 1095 899 1489 1034 1558 2494 736 12 16

8/15/2019 1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

11/13

evidenced that the combination of both a bioscrubber and a biofil-

ter removes VOC from the gas phase and degrades odours in a great

part, and has been determined to be suitable for the removal of

aldehydes, fatty acids and esters (Kleeberg et al., 2005; Ranauet al., 2005; Schlegelmilch et al., 2005a, 2005b), the compounds

that contribute more to the odorous load of the studied facility.

Hence, a convenient approach to diminish the interior odorous

charge of the evaluated MSW treatment plant could be to treat

indoor air with a bioscrubber coupled to a biofilter. To reduce

economical costs, the treatment of indoor air could only be focused

on the locations of the plant where OU are higher (e.g. Rotating

Biostabilizers).

Further studies must include an exhaustive evaluation of each

step taken by the residues that enter the MSW plant: material

handling (delivery of the waste, movement of the compost,. . .),

composting conditions (temperature, humidity, aeration,. . .),

cleanliness of the place (leaks, spills, frequency of cleaning,. . .) so

that to identify possible chemical reactions or emissions of VOCfrom concrete processes/operations and determine the different

sources’ contribution to the total odorous charge of the facility.

These records will be helpful when establishing strategies to sup-

press the odorous nuisances (Schlegelmilch et al., 2005a, 2005b).

4. Conclusions

The application of the presented methodology in a municipal

solid waste treatment facility has proven to be useful in order to

determine which types of VOC contribute substantially to the in-

door air odorous charge. One hundred and thirty chemical com-

pounds were determined qualitatively. Alcohols, esters,

terpenoids and carboxylic acids showed the higher concentrations,

however, esters, carboxylic acids and aldehydes contributed in agreater part to OU in all studied locations of the facility. The senso-

rial methods often used to evaluate odours do not allow the dis-

crimination of the concrete kind of substances responsible of the

odour. And, on the other hand, the chemical evaluations of the

VOC emitted from waste treatment facilities generally do not

establish the relationship between the concentration obtained of

a concrete compound and its associated odour units. Hence, the

knowledge of a well characterized chemical composition of MSW

treatment facilities’ indoor air, as shown in the present article,

would be a helpful instrument to prevent the generation of odor-

ous compounds during the waste processing procedure, as well

as to select a suitable treatment system. Additionally, a regular

gaseous monitoring in the critical operational processes of the

plant would be also a considerable progression towards theachievement of a solution to the odorous problems. An advisable

T e r p e n o i d s

D

- L i m o n e n e

2 0

1 8

3 3

4 . 3

4 . 3

2 . 6

1 3

1 1

1 1

8 . 4

1 . 6

1 8

1 3

4 . 6

2 0

E

u c a l y p t o l

5 2

4 4

8 7

7 . 1

8 . 4

5 . 2

2 2

2 0

2 3

1 7

9 . 6

4 1

2 4

7 . 4

4 4

p - C y m e n e

5 . 8

5 . 3

1 3

4 . 4

1 . 5

–

–

6 . 0

3 . 0

1 8

5 4

2 . 1

1 0

1 8

1 1

a

- P i n e n e

4 . 6

2 . 9

8 . 9

–

–

–

2 . 3

2 . 1

2 . 0

1 . 4

1 . 1

3 . 8

2 . 4

–

3 . 4

b

- M y r c e n e

1 1

9 . 8

2 0

1 . 8

1 . 6

–

5 . 9

4 . 2

6 . 0

4 . 2

–

6 . 2

5 . 9

1 . 5

9 . 8

T

o t a l O U

t e r p e n o i d s

9 3

8 0

1 6 2

1 8

1 6

7 . 8

4 3

4 3

4 5

4 9

6 6

7 1

5 5

3 2

8 8

O

r g a n o s u l f u r s

D

i m e t h y l d i s u l fi d e

4 . 5

1 4

7 . 9

4 . 2

5 . 0

1 . 6

8 . 2

3 . 9

4 . 7

2 . 7

–

5 . 1

3 . 4

7 . 9

4 . 9

D

i m e t h y l s u l fi d e

1 9

8 0

6 0

4 4

6 9

1 9

6 2

5 5

4 7

2 4

0

1 5

1 4 5

1 7 8

1 6 4

6 3

T

o t a l O U

o r g a n o s u l f u r s

2 4

9 4

6 8

4 8

7 4

2 1

7 0

5 9

5 2

2 4

3

1 5

1 5 0

1 8 1

1 7 2

6 8

T

o t a l O U

1 2 , 1 6 7

1 2 , 5 3 2

2 7 , 7 9 1

4 3 0 4

4 1 3 6

4 5 4 6

7 9 1 9

1 0 , 6 5 5

1 0 , 0 6 7

4 7

9 7

1 1 6 6

1 1 , 5 4 4

8 4 1 6

2 1 8 0

1 1 , 4 3 4

a

C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f t h e c o m p o u n d b e l o w

t h e o d o u r

t h r e s h o l d ,

h e n c e , o d o u r u n i t s b e l o w

t h e u n i t y .

OU familial contribution

0

20

40

60

80

100

BRS Shipping

warehouse

Composting

tunnels

Digest

centrifugals

Humid pre-

treatment

F a m i l y

c o n t r i b u t i o n ( % )

Aromatic hydrocarbons Alcohols AldehydesEsters Acids TerpenoidsOrganosulfurs

Fig. 3. Odour units (OU) familial distribution. Percentage of OU of each family in

respect to all OU determined.


8/15/2019 1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

12/13

approach to diminish the odour charge of the evaluated MSW

treatment plant could be to treat indoor air with a bioscrubber

coupled to a biofilter, in order to combine the advantages of both

technologies, as they are indicated for the treatment of fatty acids,

esters and aldehydes, the main generators of odorous nuisance in

the studied facility.

Finally, the completion of the obtained data with real odour

measurements through olfactometry is an interesting approach

to be taken into account in future studies, mainly to both validate

the obtained results and to avoid possible masking or quenching of

odours by the different compounds present in the odorous

mixture.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support given through the EH-

MAN project (DPI2009-09386) financed both for the Spanish Min-

istry of Science and Innovation and the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF) from the European Union. E. Gallego

acknowledges with thanks a Juan de la Cierva grant from the Span-

ish Ministry of Science and Innovation.

References

Agència de Residus de Catalunya, 2009.Programa de Gestióde Residus Municipals a

Catalunya. PROGREMIC. Departament de Medi Ambient i Habitatge, Generalitat

de Catalunya, Barcelona, p. 317.

Allen, M.R., Braithwaite, A., Hills, C.C., 1997. Trace organic compounds in landfill gas

at seven UK waste disposal sites. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31, 1054–1061.

Bruno, P., Caselli, M., de Gennaro, G., Solito, M., Tutino, M., 2007. Monitoring of odor

compounds produced by solid waste treatment plants with diffusive samplers.

Waste Manage. 27, 539–544.

Chiriac, R., Carre, J., Perrodin, Y., Fine, L., Letoffe, J.-M., 2007. Characterisation of

VOCs emitted by open cells receiving municipal solid waste. J. Hazard. Mater.

149, 249–263.

Chiriac, R., De Araujos Morais, J., Carre, J., Bayard, R., Chovelon, J.M., Gourdon, R.,

2011. Study of the VOC emissions from a municipal solid waste storage pilot-

scale cell: Comparison with biogases from municipal waste landfill site. Waste

Manage. 31, 2294–2301.

Dincer, F., Odabasi, M., Muezzinoglu, A., 2006. Chemical characterization of odorous

gases at a landfill site by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. J.

Chromatogr. A 1122, 222–229.

Domingo, J.L., Nadal, M., 2009. Domestic waste composting facilities: a review of

human health risks. Environ. Int. 35, 382–389.

Durmusoglu, E., Taspinar, F., Karademir, A., 2010. Health risk assessment of BTEX

emissions in the landfill environment. J. Hazard. Mater. 176, 870–877.

Dutra, C., Pezo, D., de Alvarenga Freire, M.T., Nerín, C., Reyes Reyes, F.G., 2011.

Determination of volatile organic compounds in recycled polyethylene

terephthalate and high-density polyethylene by headspace solid phase

microextraction gas chromatography mass spectrometry to evaluate the

efficiency of recycling process. J. Chromatogr. A 1218, 1319–1330.

Espert, A., de las Heras, L.A., Karlsson, S., 2005. Emission of possible odorous low

molecular weight compounds in recycled biofibre/polypropylene composites

monitored by head-space SPME-GC–MS. Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 90, 555–562.

Gallego, E., Roca, F.X., Perales, J.F., Rosell, M.G., Guardino, X., 2008. Development and

validation of a method for air-quality and nuisance odours monitoring of

volatile sulphur compounds (VSCs) using ATD–GC/MS. In: Grimalt, J.O. (Ed.),

Proceedings of the 12 as Jornadas de Análisis Instrumental, 21–23 October2008, Barcelona, p. 30.

Gallego, E., Roca, X., Perales, J.F., Guardino, X., 2009a. Determining indoor air quality

and identifying the origin of odour episodes in indoor environments. J. Environ.

Sci. 21, 333–339.

Gallego, E., Roca, F.J., Perales, J.F., Guardino, X., 2009b. Simultaneous evaluation of

odor episodes and air quality. Methodology to identify air pollutants and their

origin combining chemical analysis (TD–GC/MS), social participation, and

mathematical simulation techniques. In: Romano, G.C., Conti, A.G. (Eds.), Air

Quality in the XXI Century. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp. 139–209.

Gallego, E., Roca, F.J., Perales, J.F., Guardino, X., 2010. Comparative study of the

adsorption performance of a multi-sorbent bed (Carbotrap, Carbopack X,

Carboxen 569) and a Tenax TA adsorbent tube for the analysis of volatile

organic compounds (VOCs). Talanta 81, 916–924.

Gallego, E., Roca, F.J., Perales, J.F., Guardino, X., 2011a. Assessment of chemical

hazards in sick building syndrome situations. Determination of concentrations

and origin of VOCs in indoor air environments by dynamic sampling and TD–

GC/MS analysis. In: Abdul-Wahab, Sabah Ahmed (Ed.), Sick Building Syndrome

in Public Buildings. Springer, Germany, pp. 289–334.

Gallego, E., Roca, F.J., Perales, J.F., Guardino, X., 2011b. Odor control in urban areasoriginated from multiple focuses. Identification of potentially toxic compounds.

In: Daniels, J.A. (Ed.), Advances in Environmental Research, vol. 14. Nova

Editors, New York, pp. 261–288.

Harrison, E.Z., 2007. Health impacts of composting air emissions. Biocycle 48, 44–

50.

He, P., Tang, J., Zhang, D., Zeng, Y., Shao, L., 2010. Release of volatile organic

compounds during bio-drying of municipal solid waste. J. Environ. Sci. 22, 752–

759.

Heida, H., Bartman, F., van der Zee, S.C., 1995. Occupational exposure and Indro air

quality monitoring in a composting facility. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 56, 39–43.

Je, C.-h., Stone, R., Oberg, S.G., 2007. Development and application of a multi-

channel monitoring system for near real-time VOC measurement in ahazardous waste management facility. Sci. Total Environ. 382, 364–374.

Kim, K.-H., Kim, M.-Y., 2002. The distributions of BTEX compounds in the ambient

atmosphere of the Nan-Ji-Do abandoned landfill site in Seoul. Atmos. Environ.

36, 2433–3446.

Kim, K.-H., Shon, Z.-H., Kim, M.-Y., Sunwoo, Y., Jeon, E.-C., hong, J.-H., 2008. Major

aromatic VOC in the ambient air in the proximity of an urban landfill facility. J.

Hazard. Mater. 150, 754–764.

Kleeberg, K.K., Liu, L., Jans, M., Schlegelmilch, M., Streese, J., Stegmann, R., 2005.

Development of a simple and sensitive method for the characterization of

odorous waste gas emissions by means of solid-phase microextraction (SPME)

and GC–MS/olfactometry. Waste Manage. 25, 872–879.

Leach, J., Blanch, A., Bianchi, A.C., 1999. Volatile organic compounds in an urban

airborne environment adjacent to a municipal incinerator, waste collection

centre and sewage treatment plant. Atmos. Environ. 33, 4309–4325.

Leguizamón, D., 2003. La calidad del aire en una planta cerrada destinada al

tratamiento y recuperación de la fracción orgánica de los residuos sólidos

urbanos. Maestría en Enginyeria i Gestió Ambiental. Universitat Rovira i Virgili,

Tarragona, Spain.

Liu, Q., Li, M., Chen, R., Li, Z., Qian, G., An, T., Fu, J., Sheng, G., 2009. Biofiltration

treatment of odors from municipal solid waste treatment plants. Waste

Manage. 29, 2051–2058.

Mao, I.F., Tsai, C.-J., Shen, S.-H., Lin, T.-F., Chen, W.-K., Chen, M.-L., 2006. Critical

components of odors in evaluating the performance of food waste composting

plants. Sci. Total Environ. 370, 323–329.

Mudliar, S., Giri, B., Padoley, K., Satpute, D., Dixit, R., Bhatt, P., Pandey, R., Juwarkar,

A., Vaidya, A., 2010. Bioreactors for treatment of VOCs and odours – a review. J.

Environ. Manage. 91, 1039–1054.

Muñoz, R., Sivret, E.C., Parcsi, G., Lebrero, R., Wang, X., Suffet, I.H., Stuetz, R.M., 2010.

Monitoring techniques for odour abatement assessment. Water Res. 44, 5129–

5149.

Nadal, M.,Inza, I., Schumacher, M., Figueras, M.J., Domingo, J.L., 2009. Healthrisks of

the occupational exposure to microbiological and Chemicals pollutants in a

municipal waste organic fraction treatment plant. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health

212, 661–669.

Páxeus, N., 2000. Organic compounds in municipal landfill sites. Water Sci. Technol.

42, 323–333.

Powers, W., 2004. The Science of the Smell Part 3: Odour Detection andMeasurement. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington.

Ranau, R., Kleeberg, K.K., Schlegelmilch, M., Streese, J., Stegmann, R., Steinhart, H.,

2005. Analytical determination of the suitability of different processes for the

treatment of odorous waste gas. Waste Manage. 25, 908–916.

Ribes, A., Carrera, G., Gallego, E., Roca, X., Berenguer, M.J., Guardino, X., 2007.

Development and validation of a method for air-quality and nuisance odors

monitoring of volatile organic compounds using multi-sorbent adsorption and

gas chromatography/mass spectrometry thermal desorption system. J.

Chromatogr. A 1140, 44–55.

Röck, F., Gurio, A., Weimar, U., 2005. Multisensor system for characterization of

packaging emissions: prediction of total solvent amount and odor scores. Anal.

Chem. 77, 2762–2769.

Scaglia, B., Orzi, V., Artola, A., Font, X., Davoli, E., Sanchez, A., Adani, F., 2011. Odours

and volatile organic compounds emitted frommunicipal solidwaste at different

stage of decomposition and relationship with biological stability. Bioresour.

Technol. 102, 4638–4645.

Schauberger, G., Piringer, M., Knauder, W., Petz, E., 2011. Odour emissions from a

waste treatment plant using an inverse dispersion technique. Atmos. Environ.

45, 1639–1647.Scheutz, C., Bogner, J., Chanton, J.P., Blake, D., Morcet, M., Aran, C., Kjeldsen, P., 2008.

Atmospheric emissions and attenuation of non-methane organic compounds in

cover soils at a French landfill. Waste Manage. 28, 1892–1908.

Schlegelmilch, M., Streese, J., Biedermann, W., Herold, T., Stegmann, R., 2005a. Odor

control at biowaste composting facilities. Waste Manage. 25, 917–927.

Schlegelmilch, M., Streese, J., Stegmann, R., 2005b. Odour management and

treatment technologies: an overview. Waste Manage. 25, 928–939.

Slack, R.J., Gronow, J.R., Voulvoulis, N., 2005. Household hazardous waste in

municipal landfills: contaminants in leachate. Sci. Total Environ. 337, 119–

137.

Staley, B.F., Xu, F., Cowie, S.J., Barlaz, M.A., Hater, G.R., 2006. Release of trace organic

compounds during the decomposition of municipal solid waste components.

Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 5984–5991.

Statheropoulos, M., Agapiou, A., Pallis, G., 2005. A study of volatile organic

compounds evolved in urban waste disposal bins. Atmos. Environ. 39, 4639–

4645.

Teixeira, M.A., Rodríguez, O., Rodrigues, A.E., 2011. Odor detection and perception:

an engineering perspective. In: Daniels, J.A. (Ed.), Advances in EnvironmentalResearch, vol. 14. Nova Editors, New York, pp. 1–51.


8/15/2019 1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

13/13

Tsai, C.-J., Chen, M.-L., Chang, K.-F., Chang, F.-K., Mao, I.-F., 2009. The pollution

characteristics of odor, volatile organochlorinated compounds and polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons emitted from plastic waste recycling plants.

Chemosphere 74, 1104–1110.

U.S. EPA, 1999. Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Toxic Organic

Compounds in Ambient Air, Method TO-15, EPA/625/R-96/010b. Center for

Environmental Research Information, Office of Research and Development, U.S.

EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Ying, D., Chuanyum, C., Bin, H., Yueen, X., Xuejuan, Z., Yingxu, C., Weixiang, W.,

2012. Characterization and control of odorous gases at a landfill site: a case

study in Hangzhou, China. Waste Manage. 32, 317–326.


Date post:	05-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rara
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

1-s2.0-S0956053X12003108-main.pdf

Documents