water research 43 (2009) 19771985

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/watres

Predicting odour emissions from wastewater treatment

plants by means of odour emission factors
Laura Capelli*, Selena Sironi, Renato Del Rosso, Paolo Centola
Politecnico di Milano, Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering Giulio Natta, Olfactometric Laboratory,
P.za Leonardo Da Vinci, 32 -20133 Milano, Italy

article info

abstract

Article history:

In this study, the results of odour concentration measurements on different wastewater

Received 18 August 2008

treatment plants are presented and used in order to estimate the odour emission factors

Received in revised form

relevant to single odour sources. An odour emission factor is a representative value that

21 January 2009

relates the quantity of odour released to the atmosphere to a specific activity index, which

Accepted 26 January 2009

in this case was the plant treatment capacity, resulting in an odour emission factor

Published online 4 February 2009

expressed in odour units per cubic metre of treated sewage. The results show that the
major odour source of a wastewater treatment plant is represented by the primary sedi-

Keywords:

mentation (with an OEF equal to 1.9  105 ouE m3). In general, the highest OEFs are

Wastewater treatment

observed in correspondence of the first steps of the wastewater depuration cycle (OEF

Specific odour emission rate

between 1.1  104 ouE m3 and 1.9  105 ouE m3) and tend to decrease along the depu-

Odour emission factors

ration process (OEF between 7.4  103 ouE m3 and 4.3  104 ouE m3). In general, the OEFs

Odour prediction

calculated according to this approach represent a model for a rough prediction of odour
emissions independently from the specific characteristics of the different plants.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) represent a common

source of odour emissions that can be the cause of odour
nuisance to the population living near, and problems connected to odour emissions often represent the limiting factor
to the activity or construction of these kind of plants (Frechen,
1988; Gostelow et al., 2001).
Odours are emitted from waste water collection, treatment, and storage systems through volatilization of organic
compounds at the liquid surface. Odours in wastewater
treatment arise mainly from the biodegradation of sewage,
especially anaerobic degradation (Burgess et al., 2001), and
they are generated by a number of different wastewater
components (Vincent and Hobson, 1998), the most significant
being the sulphur compounds, hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and
mercaptan. Domestic sewage contains 36 mg l1 organic

sulphur, mainly arising from proteinaceous materials, plus

z4 mg l1 from sulphonates contained in household detergents (Boon, 1995) and 3060 mg l1 inorganic sulphur (as
sulphates) (Gostelow and Parsons, 2000).
Emissions can occur by diffusive or convective mechanisms, or both. Diffusion occurs when organic concentrations
at the water surface are much higher than ambient concentrations. The organics volatilize (Bianchi and Varney, 1997), or
diffuse into the air, in an attempt to reach equilibrium
between aqueous and vapour phases. Convection occurs
when air flows over the water surface, sweeping organic
vapours from the water surface into the air. The rate of volatilization relates directly to the speed of the air flow over the
water surface (US EPA, 1995).
A useful tool for odour impact assessment and prediction
are odour emission factors (OEFs) (Sironi et al., 2005). OEFs are
developed in analogy with the emission factors defined by the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 39 02 23993206; fax: 39 02 23993291.

E-mail address: laura.capelli@polimi.it (L. Capelli).
0043-1354/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.watres.2009.01.022

1978

water research 43 (2009) 19771985

United States Environmental Protection Agency (1995) for

other pollutants/chemical compounds, which relate the
quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere to a given
associated activity. In the estimation of OEFs for industrial
plants, these values can be calculated as the product of the
emitted odour concentration (ouE m3) by the emitted air flow
(m3 s1), divided by a specific index, which may be for example
the gross weight production, the site surface or a time unit.
In general, OEFs can be used for odour impact assessment
as input data for the application of specific odour dispersion
models. OEFs also can have a predictive value: they allow to
estimate the odour emission rate (OER) associated with an
industrial plant even before its construction. Moreover, OEFs
may be applied in order to predict how the odour impact of an
industrial plant will be influenced by plant modifications, e.g.
for the case of WWTPs, the change of the conferred wastewater quality or quantity, or the variation of the duration of
any treatment phase. In this case, OEFs can be useful in order
to evaluate the feasibility of the planned technological or
functional modifications (Sironi et al., 2006).
Data regarding the chemical concentration of pollutants,
resulting from measurement campaigns on representative
sources, are generally available as a function of the processing
type and/or the fume depuration technology. On the other
hand, data found in literature concerning odour concentrations and odour flow rates are few and with poor reliability.
This fact represents a serious limit for the availability of
bibliographical OEFs and require that OEFs are created by
from experimental laboratory data.
This work describes the methods used for the calculation of OEFs based on the results of olfactometric
measurements that were carried out on a significant
number of WWTPs, which differ in constructional features,
in type of treated wastewater and in geographical locations
in Italy.

2.

Materials and methods

2.1.

Sampling

The major odour sources of a typical WWTP are represented

by the open-air wastewater treatment tanks, which can be
classified as area sources without outward flow (or passive
area sources) (Bockreis and Steinberg, 2005).
The sampling on area sources without outward flow
requires the use of specific hoods that have to be appropriately
designed in order to simulate the environmental conditions to
which the emitting surface is usually subject. The design and
the realization of a sampling system with such properties is
not banal and it is still under study (Frechen et al., 2004;
Hudson and Ayoko, 2008).
The data presented in this paper were obtained by using
a wind tunnel (WT) system, which enables the simulation of
wind action on the sampled surface (Jiang et al., 1995; Jiang
and Kaye, 1996). The WT consists of a polyethyleneterephthalate (PET) hood that is positioned over the emitting
surface. A neutral air stream, either filtered through activated
carbon or coming directly from a synthetic air bottle, is
introduced at a known velocity inside the hood, simulating

the wind action on the liquid surface to be monitored. Air

samples are then collected in the outlet duct by means of
a vacuum pump.
Mass transfer from the monitored surface to the gaseous
phase is guaranteed by the air stream velocity (convective
mass transfer) (Bliss et al., 1995). This phenomenon can be
described according to the Prandtl boundary layer theory, and
the mass transfer coefficient calculated using the following
expression:
Kc

0:664D 1=2 1=3

Re Sc
l

where Kc is the mass transfer coefficient (m s1); D is the

molecular diffusivity of the odorous compounds in the liquid
phase; l is the length of the contact area between gaseous
phase and liquid phase in the air flow direction, i.e. the length
of the wind tunnel base; Re is the Reynolds number and Sc the
Schmidt number.
The wind tunnel (Fig. 1) used during the experimentation
has a circular section inlet and outlet duct, of 0.08 m diameter.
The central body of the hood used was a 0.25 m wide, 0.08 m
high and 0.50 m long rectangular section chamber. Inside the
inlet duct there is a perforated stainless steel grid and inside
the divergent that connects this duct to the central body of the
hood there are three flow deflection vanes. Both these devices
have the function of making the air velocity profiles as
homogeneous as possible.
In total, 211 samples were collected in 17 different plants
located all over Italy, treating mostly municipal wastewaters
and an amount of industrial wastewaters comprised between
10% and 25%, with a treatment capacity ranging from
a minimum of 1000 m3 day1 and a maximum of 80,0000 m3
day1.

2.2.

Analysis

The olfactometric analyses were conducted in conformity

with the European norm EN 13725 (2003) in the Olfactometric
Laboratory of the Politecnico di Milano.
Dynamic olfactometry is a sensorial technique that allows
the determination of the odour concentration of an odorous
air sample relating to the sensation caused by the sample
directly on a panel of opportunely selected people. The odour
concentration is expressed in European odour units per cubic
metre (ouE m3), and it represents the number of dilutions
with neutral air that are necessary to bring the concentration
of the sample to its odour perception threshold concentration.
The analysis is carried out by presenting the sample to the
panel at increasing concentrations by means of a particular
dilution device called olfactometer, until the panel members
start perceiving an odour that is different from the reference
neutral air. The odour concentration is then calculated as the
geometric mean of the odour threshold values of each panellist, multiplied by a factor that depends on the olfactometer
dilution step factor.
An olfactometer ECOMA model TO7, based on the yes/
no method, was used as a dilution device. This instrument
with aluminium casing has 4 panellist places in separate
open boxes. Each box is equipped with a stainless steel
sniffing port and a push-button for yes (odour threshold).

water research 43 (2009) 19771985

1979

Fig. 1 Design of the wind tunnel.

The measuring range of the TO7 olfactometer starts from

a maximum dilution factor of 1:64,000, with a dilution step
factor 2. All the measurements were conducted within 30 h
after sampling, relying on a panel composed of 4 panellists.
The odour concentration was calculated as the geometric
mean of the odour threshold values of each panellist,
p
multiplied by 2.

2.3.

Calculation of OEFs

The OEF are developed with the aim of disposing of a simple

method for estimating the overall odour emission rate (OER) of
an industrial site (Sironi et al., 2005).
In WWTPs, odour emissions can be influenced by different
factors, such as wastewater composition, treatment methods
and treatment conditions (e.g. temperature, pH, retention
time, etc.). Since emission factors in general should have
a predictive and non-descriptive character (description of
plant emissions should be based on more specific data
regarding the above mentioned aspects), enabling a quick and
easy estimate of the overall emissions of a WWTP, they should
be expressed as a function of one possible rough aspect of
the considered plant. It was decided, in analogy with the
emission factors defined by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (1995) for other pollutants/chemical
compounds, to refer the OEFs to a specific activity index,
which should be representative of the examined plant and
associated with the emitted odour quantity. In this study, the
average yearly treatment capacity was assumed as activity
index for WWTPs (Sironi et al., 2007). The appropriateness of
this choice is based on experimental evidence, which shows
the existence of a correlation between conferred wastewater
quantity and emitted odour quantity, and it is discussed in
Section 3.4.
The expression for the OEF calculation is therefore:
OEF

OER
C

where OEF is the odour emission factor in ouE m3, OER is the
odour emission rate in ouE year1 and C is the yearly treatment capacity in m3 year1. The OEF therefore represents the
quantity of emitted odour related to the wastewater volume
unit, i.e. it is expressed in odour units per cubic metre of
treated sewage.
The OEF must be evaluated separately for each plant, and
for each odour source, considering that each odour source is
represented by the single treatment phases of the depuration

cycle. The odour sources that were considered for this study
are:
 Wastewater arrival (WW-arr);
 Pre-treatments (pre-tr);
 Primary sedimentation (I-sed);
 De-nitrification (denitr);
 Nitrification (nitr);
 Oxidation (oxi);
 Secondary sedimentation (II-sed);
 Chemical-physical treatments (ch-ph);
 Sludge thickening (sl-thi);
 Sludge storage (sl-st).
Some considerations have to be made as far as the above
mentioned odour sources are concerned. These sources are
area sources without outward flow (passive area sources),
where liquid (or solid) surface is exposed to atmospheric agents
and perturbations, and emissions occur directly to the atmosphere without any containment possibility. For these kind of
sources the evaluation of the OER requires the calculation of
a parameter called specific odour emission rate (SOER), which
is expressed in ouE s1 m2 and can be obtained by multiplying
the odour concentration measured at the outlet of the wind
tunnel (ouE m3) with the flow rate of the inlet air (m3 s1) and
dividing it by the base area of the central body of the hood (m2).
The OER is then calculated as the product of the SOER and the
emitting surface (m2) of the considered area source.
Based on its definition, the SOER is a function of the neutral
air stream velocity that is introduced into the wind tunnel. As
during field measurements samplings are not always conducted at the same conditions, the SOER values are evaluated
for each sampling separately, considering the sampling
conditions, e.g. neutral air stream velocity, that were adopted
case by case. The SOER values are then normalized to a reference velocity of 0.3 m s1 (Bliss et al., 1995) using the following
equation, which is derived directly from the Prandtl boundary
layer theory (Sohn et al., 2005):
SOERv2 SOERv1

 1=2
v2
v1

The emitting surface (e.g. dimensional characteristics of the

wastewater treatment tanks) relevant to some of the considered odour sources were not available. In these cases, the
emitting surfaces had to be estimated according to the criteria
for the design of wastewater treatment plants (Tchobanoglous
and Burton, 1991).

1980

water research 43 (2009) 19771985

Table 2 Design of the samplings on the solutions of

water and n-butanol

3.

Results and discussion

3.1.

Odour concentration determination

Table 1 reports the results of the odour concentration

measurements for each odour source being considered, i.e. for
each treatment phase. Given the nature of the odour
concentration measurement, the statistical calculations must
consider the logarithms of the odour concentration values
(EN 13725, 2003). The first column of Table 1 represents the
arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the odour concentrations. In order to highlight the data variability and the nature
of distribution, the second and third columns report the
median and the standard deviation of these values.
Table 2 reports the antilogarithms of the data reported in
Table 1, which were calculated in order to express the average
odour concentration and the median of the odour concentration values in ouE m3. The antilogarithm of the standard
deviation isnt meaningful, as it does not give any information
about data variability and distribution. An indication of this
distribution can be given by the percent deviation reported in
the third column of Table 2. This percent deviation was
calculated by dividing the logarithmic standard deviation by
the arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the odour concentration values.
As an example, the single odour concentration values
measured on the stored sludge are illustrated in Fig. 2. The
plant numbers were assigned in increasing order of treatment
capacity.

3.2.

Wastewater arrival
Pre-treatments
Primary sedimentation
De-nitrification
Nitrification
Oxidation
Secondary sedimentation
Chemicalphysical
treatments
Sludge thickening
Sludge storage

Median of
%
cod
Deviation

2.26E03
3.84E03
1.49E03
2.29E02
1.31E02
2.01E02
1.22E02
6.02E02

4.30E02
5.30E03
1.40E03
2.00E02
1.52E02
1.80E02
1.24E02
4.80E02

40
30
25
17
13
18
20
17

1.87E03
8.45E02

2.15E03
6.76E02

26
21

Arithmetic
mean
of log(cod)

Median of
log(cod)

Standard
deviation
of log(cod)

3.354
3.584
3.173

2.633
3.724
3.146

1.325
1.073
0.787

2.359
2.117
2.303
2.086

2.301
2.182
2.255
2.093

0.400
0.272
0.408
0.408

Table 4 reports the antilogarithms of the data reported in

Table 3, which were calculated in order to express the
average OEFs and the median in ouE t1. Analogously to
the case of odour concentration values, the antilogarithm of
the standard deviation does not give any clear information
about data variability and distribution. An indication of this
distribution can be given by the percent deviation reported in
the third column of Table 4. These percent deviations,
calculated by dividing the logarithmic standard deviation by
the arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the OEF values, give
an indication of the variations between different plants and
therefore of the extent of the variations in the predictions
based on the use of OEFs. As confirmed by the data reported
in Table 4, the highest variations are to be expected in the
evaluation of the odour emissions from the wastewater
arrival phase, due to the differences in wastewater loading at
the plants inlet.
The average OEF values were reported in Fig. 3 in order to
compare the entity of the odour emissions from each odour
source being considered in this study.
Fig. 3 shows that the primary sedimentation represents the
major odour source of a WWTP plant, having an OEF of about
1.9  105 ouE m3. In general, it can be observed that the highest
OEFs are associated with the first steps of the wastewater
depuration cycle: the wastewater arrival, the pre-treatments
and the primary sedimentation. This demonstrates that the
odour load of wastewater prior to the effective treatment,
i.e. the biological treatment, is rather high (OEF between
1.1  104 ouE m3 and 1.9  105 ouE m3), tending to decrease
along the depuration process (OEF between 7.4  103 ouE m3
and 4.3  104 ouE m3).
It is worth highlighting that all the data presented in this
section are a function of the air velocity inside the sampling
hood used in order to simulate wind action on the monitored
surface. In this case, a reference air velocity of 0.3 m s1 was
chosen, but all the data can be referred to any other velocity
value by considering that the odour concentration is proportional to v1/2 (Sohn et al., 2005).

2.780

2.681

0.470

3.3.

3.273
2.927

3.329
2.830

0.855
0.621

OEF from odour emission data

Table 3 reports the OEFs that were calculated for each odour
source. Also in this case, the statistical calculations must
consider the logarithms of the OEF values (EN 13725, 2003).
The first column of Table 3 represents the arithmetic mean of
the logarithms of the OEFs. The second and third columns
report the median and the standard deviation of these values,
which are useful in order to highlight the data variability.

Table 1 Arithmetic mean, median and standard

deviation of the logarithms of the odour concentration
values

Wastewater arrival
Pre-treatments
Primary
sedimentation
De-nitrification
Nitrification
Oxidation
Secondary
sedimentation
Chemicalphysical
treatments
Sludge thickening
Sludge storage

Geometric
mean
of cod

How to use the OEF

The overall OER relevant to a WWTP can be obtained as

the product of the plant treatment capacity and the sum

1981

water research 43 (2009) 19771985

Odour concentration cod (ouE m-3)

100000

10000

1000
Geometric mean = 845 ouE m-3

100

10
1000

100

10000

100000

1000000

Treatment capacity C (m3 d-1)

Fig. 2 Odour concentration values relevant to the sludge storage.

of the OEFs relevant to each of the odour sources that are

present at the considered plant. As an example, if a WWTP
is constituted by all the treatment phases that were
considered as odour sources in this study, its overall
OER could be determined according to the following
equation:

OERTOT C  OEFWW-arr OEFpre-tr OEFI-sed OEFdenitr
OEFnitr OEFoxi OEFII-sed OEFch-ph OEFsl-thi

OEFsl-st
where C is the plant treatment capacity (e.g. in m3 day1) and
the OEF are expressed in ouE m3. The index indicates the
odour source which the OEFs refer to.
The equation that allows the determination the overall
OER, once the plant capacity is given, was obtained by
substituting the OEFs values that were calculated in this
study:


OERTOT C  1:1  104 1:0  105 1:9  105 9:2  103
7:4  103 1:2  104 1:3  104 8:2  103

4:2  104 8:3  103
OERTOT C  4:07  105
As an example, the overall OER relevant to a plant with an
average treatment capacity of 50,000 m3 day1 may be calculated according to the proposed model.
In this specific case, the overall OER would be:

OERTOT 50; 000  1:1  104 1:0  105 1:9  105 9:2  103
7:4  103 1:2  104 1:3  104 8:2  103

4:2  104 8:3  103
1

OERTOT 50; 000 m3 day

10

2:04  10

ouE d

 4:07  105 ouE m3

1

2:36  105 ouE s1

Table 3 Arithmetic mean, median and standard

deviation of the logarithms of the OEFs

Wastewater arrival
Pre-treatments
Primary
sedimentation
De-nitrification
Nitrification
Oxidation
Secondary
sedimentation
Chemicalphysical
treatments
Sludge thickening
Sludge storage

Arithmetic
mean
of log(OEF)

Median of
log(OEF)

Standard
deviation
of log(OEF)

4.036
5.021
5.280

3.488
5.534
5.072

1.405
1.429
0.854

3.962
3.866
4.082
4.118

3.797
3.840
4.236
4.120

0.631
0.848
0.790
0.524

3.916

4.035

0.587

4.629
3.917

4.698
4.009

0.894
0.701

Table 4 Average OEFs, median and percent deviation

Geometric
mean
of OEF
Wastewater arrival
Pre-treatments
Primary sedimentation
De-nitrification
Nitrification
Oxidation
Secondary
sedimentation
Chemicalphysical
treatments
Sludge thickening
Sludge storage

Median of
%
OEF
Deviation

1.09E04
1.05E05
1.90E05
9.15E03
7.35E03
1.21E04
1.31E04

3.09E03
3.42E05
1.18E05
6.27E03
6.91E03
1.72E04
1.34E04

40
26
17
17
22
19
13

8.25E03

1.09E04

15

4.25E04
8.26E03

4.99E04
1.02E04

19
17

1982

water research 43 (2009) 19771985

1.00E+06

OEF (ouE m-3)

1.90E+05
1.05E+05

1.00E+05

4.25E+04
1.09E+04

9.15E+03 7.35E+03

1.00E+04

1.21E+04 1.31E+04

8.25E+03

8.26E+03

itr
ifi
ca
tio
n
N

Se
O
co
xi
da
nd
tio
ar
n
y
C
se
he
di
m
m
ic
en
al
-p
ta
hy
tio
si
n
ca
lt
re
at
m
en
ts
Sl
ud
ge
th
ic
ke
ni
ng
Sl
ud
ge
st
or
ag
e

as
te
w

at
er
ar
riv
al
Pr
etre
at
Pr
m
im
en
ar
ts
y
se
di
m
en
ta
tio
n
D
eni
tri
fic
at
io
n

1.00E+03

Fig. 3 Average OEFs for each considered odour source.

If any of the steps are carried out in closed sheds with an air
collection system that conveys the waste gases to an abatement system, the effective OER of the plant must be calculated
taking account of the odour abatement efficiency of the
adopted abatement system (Sironi et al., 2006).

3.4.

Influence of plant size on odour emissions

In order to evaluate the influence of the size of a WWTP on its

dour emissions, the data used for the OEF calculation were reprocessed by dividing them based on the plant size. The plants
considered as small are the ones with a treatment capacity
within 103 and 104 m3 day1, medium within 104 and 105 m3
day1 and large within 105 and 106 m3 day1.
Fig. 4 shows the average odour concentration values
(geometric mean) for each examined odour source relevant to
the three plant sizes. It can be observed that, if considering the

same treatment phase, there are no significant differences

between the average odour concentration values measured on
small, medium, or large size plants.
This fact entails some interesting consequences for the
correlation between the odour emission rates from the
different treatment phases and the plant size.
First, the SOER values relevant to each odour source, being
derived directly from the measured odour concentrations, are
similar independently from the considered plant capacity.
This means that SOER values could be used in order to
calculate odour emissions from a proposed WWTP. Nonetheless, the direct use of SOER values for overall OER estimation entails the necessity to consider each treatment phase
separately and to have precise information about each odour
source. Such information may not be available, especially in
the case of a plant that does not already exist, moreover,
calculations would be more difficult with respect to the

cod (ouE m-3)

1.00E+04

1.00E+03

Small
Medium
Large
1.00E+02

tio
n
Se
co
O
x
nd
id
C
at
ar
he
io
y
n
se
m
ic
d
im
al
-p
e
nt
hy
at
si
io
ca
n
lt
re
at
m
en
Sl
ts
ud
ge
th
ic
ke
ni
Sl
ng
ud
ge
st
or
ag
e

ifi
ca

n
itr
N

ifi
ca
tio
itr

en
D

ts
Pr
im
ar

se
di
m

m
en

va

tre
at

rri
ePr

at
er
a
ew
as
t
W

en
ta
tio
n

1.00E+01

Fig. 4 Average odour concentration relevant to each treatment phase for small, medium and large plants.

1983

water research 43 (2009) 19771985

1.00E+06

OER (ouE s-1)

1.00E+05

1.00E+04

Small
Medium
Large

1.00E+03

or
ag

ng

st

ke
ic

tm

ge

th

ud

ge

Sl

ud
Sl

si
hy

ar
y
C

he

Se

ic

co

al

-p

nd

ni

en

tio
ta

re
a
ca

se

lt

di

en

xi
d

ifi
N
itr

ar
y
im
Pr

ts

n
at
io

at
fic
tri

eni

m
di
se

ca
tio

n
io

n
tio
ta
en

m
at

Pr
etre

W
as

te

at

er

ar
riv

en

al

ts

1.00E+02

Fig. 5 Average odour emission rates relevant to each treatment phase for small, medium and large plants.

possibility of using of OEFs, which are useful in order to give

a quick estimation in function of a single parameter (i.e. in this
case the plant capacity).
Finally, looking at Figs. 5 and 6, which illustrate the OER
values and the OEFs in function of the plant size, respectively,
the following considerations can be made.
Some treatment phases, such as the primary sedimentation, the oxidation and the secondary sedimentation, require
an optimal residence time and tank deepness. These phases
are therefore characterized by an emitting surface (i.e. the
tank surface) that is proportional to the plant capacity and
consequently by odour emissions that increase proportionally
to the plant size. On the other hand, for those treatment
phases for which no direct relationship between the emitting

surface and the plant treatment capacity exists (such as the

wastewater arrival, pre-treatments, de-nitrification, nitrification, sludge thickening and sludge storage), the odour emission rates will be similar independently from the plant size
(Fig. 5).
The opposite consideration is valid if considering the OEFs.
Given that the OEFs for WWTPs have been defined as the ratio
between the OER values and the plant capacity, the OEFs
related to the treatment phases whose emitting surface is
proportional to the plant capacity will be similar independently from the plant size, whereas the OEFs relevant to odour
sources whose emitting surface is independent from the plant
capacity will decrease passing from small to larger plants
(Fig. 6).

1.00E+06

OEF (ouE m-3)

1.00E+05

Small
Medium
Large

1.00E+04

1.00E+03

e
or
ag
st

ke

e
ud
g

ge
ud
Sl

Sl

th

ic

re
at
lt

ca
si

ic

al
-p

hy

ni
ng

ts
m

at
en
t
m

se
di
ar
y
C
he

Se
co
nd

en

io
n

n
tio
da
xi
O

N
itr

ifi

ca
tio

n
tri

fic

at

io

n
eni

en
ta
tio
di
m

se
y
ar
im

m
tre
at

Pr
ePr

W
as

te

w
at

er

ar

riv

en
t

al

1.00E+02

Fig. 6 Average OEFs relevant to each treatment phase for small, medium and large plants.

1984

4.

water research 43 (2009) 19771985

Conclusions

Based on the discussed results it is possible to list the

following conclusions.
- This paper discusses an approach for the creation of
a model for a rough and simple prediction of the odour
emissions from a WWTP from experimental data, i.e.
from the results of olfactometric analyses conducted on
several Italian WWTPs.
- Considering the same odour source, a similarity among
the odour concentration values measured on the different
WWTPs is noticeable, independently from their size. This
similarity has interesting consequences on the odour
emission rates from the different phases, based on the
whether the emitting surface of the considered phase is
proportional to the plant size (i.e. treatment capacity) or
not.
- The obtained results show that the major odour source of
a WWTP is represented by the primary sedimentation,
having an OEF of about 1.9  105 ouE m3. In general the
highest OEFs are observed in correspondence of the first
steps of the wastewater depuration cycle: this demonstrates that the odour load of wastewater prior to biological treatment is rather high (OEF between 1.1  104 ouE
m3 and 1.9  105 ouE m3), tending to decrease along the
depuration process (OEF between 7.4  103 ouE m3 and
4.3  104 ouE m3). This fact points out the importance of
the sewer system, which influences the quality of the
wastewater at the plant inlet and therefore its odour
emission capacity (Frechen, 2008). For this reason, the
operating conditions of the wastewater treatment plant
itself generally have lower influence on odour emissions
from the first treatment steps than the correct management of the sewer system, which is often referred to as
a subject that is different from the wastewater treatment
plant management.
- An indication of the margin of error introduced in the OEF
calculation is given by the standard deviations of the
odour concentration measurements of the different odour
sources (Table 1). The effectiveness of the OEFs is not
compromised by such errors, as OEFs must be useful for
an estimation of a plant total odour impact.
- The OEFs should be updated continuously, for example by
adding more data from further olfactometric analyses.
This procedure may be facilitated by creating an electronic database for the insertion or variation of useful
data for the OEF calculation.
- The precision of the OEFs can be improved by first verifying the applicability of this model with accurate datasets describing the actual conditions on site. The OEFs
may be further refined and the margin of error associated
with the use of OEFs for the prediction of the odour impact
caused by a WWTP may be reduced by evaluating their
dependence from other parameters that were not
considered in this study, such as for example BOD,
temperature or humidity.
- According to their definition, OEFs enable a simple and
quick quantitative estimation of odour emissions,

without taking into account odour quality, which

nonetheless might represent an important aspect to
be considered for odour impact and nuisance
evaluation.

references

Bliss, P.J., Jiang, J.K., Schulz, T.J., 1995. The development of

a sampling system for determining odor emission rates from
area surfaces: part II. Mathematical model. Journal of the Air &
Waste Management Association 45, 989994.
Bockreis, A., Steinberg, I., 2005. Measurement of odour with focus
on sampling techniques. Waste Management 25, 859863.
Boon, A.G., 1995. Septicity in sewers: causes, consequences and
containment. Water Science and Technology 31, 237253.
Burgess, J.E., Parsons, S.A., Stuetz, R.M., 2001. Developments in
odour and waste gas treatment biotechnology: a review.
Biotechnology Advances 19, 3563.
EN 13725, 2003. Air Quality Determination of Odour
Concentration by Dynamic Olfactometry. Comite Europeen de
Normalisation, Brussels.
Frechen, F.B., 1998. Odour emissions and odour control at
wastewater treatment plants in West Germany. Water Science
and Technology 20, 261266.
Frechen, F.B., Frey, M., Wett, M., Loser, C., 2004. Aerodynamic
performance of a low-speed wind tunnel. Water Science and
Technology 50 (4), 5764.
Frechen, F.B., 2008. Emission of odours from sewer systems:
possible countermeasures of their efficiency using the odour
emission capacity OEC. In: Del Rosso, R. (Ed.), Chemical
Engineering Transactions, vol. 15. AIDIC Servizi S.r.l., Milano,
Italy, pp. 183190.
Gostelow, P., Parsons, S.A., 2000. Sewage treatment works odour
measurement. Water Science and Technology 41, 3340.
Gostelow, P., Parsons, S.A., Stuetz, R.M., 2001. Odour
measurements for sewage treatment works. Water Research
35, 579597.
Hudson, N., Ayoko, G.A., 2008. Odour sampling. 2. Comparison of
physical and aerodynamic characteristics of sampling devices:
a review. Bioresource Technology 99, 39934007.
Jiang, J.K., Bliss, P.J., Schulz, T.J., 1995. The development of
a sampling system for determining odor emission rates from
area surfaces: part I. Aerodynamic performance. Journal of the
Air & Waste Management Association 45, 917922.
Jiang, J.K., Kaye, R., 1996. Comparison study on portable wind
tunnel system and isolation chamber for determination of
VOCs from area sources. Water Science and Technology 34
(3-4), 583589.
Sironi, S., Capelli, L., Centola, P., Del Rosso, R., Il Grande, M., 2005.
Odour emission factors for the assessment and prediction of
Italian MSW landfills odour impact. Atmospheric
Environment 39 (29), 53875394.
Sironi, S., Capelli, L., Centola, P., Del Rosso, R., Il Grande, M., 2006.
Odour emission factors for the prediction of odour emissions
from plants for the mechanical and biological treatment of
MSW. Atmospheric Environment 40 (39), 76327643.
Sironi, S., Capelli, L., Centola, P., Del Rosso, R., Il Grande, M., 2007.
Odour emission factors for assessment and prediction of
Italian rendering plants odour impact. Chemical Engineering
Journal 131 (1-3), 225231.
Sohn, J.H., Smith, R.J., Hudson, N.A., Choi, H.L., 2005. Gas
sampling efficiencies and aerodynamic characteristics of
a laboratory wind tunnel for odour measurement. Biosystems
Engineering 92 (1), 3746.

water research 43 (2009) 19771985

Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F.L., 1991. Wastewater

Engineering: Treatment. Disposal and Reuse. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
Vincent, A., Hobson, J., 1998. Odour Control. CIWEM Monographs
on Best Practice No. 2. CIWEM, London, UK.

1985

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 1995.

Waste water collection, treatment and storage. In:
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, fifth ed.,
vol. I. Stationary Point and Area Sources, 4.3. US EPA, Research
Triangle Park, NC, pp. 146.