Technology


TRACING THE SCENT – NEW ANALYTICAL STANDARDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ODOUR ASSESSMENT


Odours, whether pleasant or foul, represent a signifi cant challenge, here ASTM International propose a new practice for Environmental Odor Assessment (WK72782)


In the early 2000s, an unusual phenomenon gripped New York City.


Residents began reporting a persistent, sweet aroma drifting through the streets. Not the typical urban scent of exhaust or waste, but the distinct smell of maple syrup.


It took years of investigation before researchers traced the source across the Hudson River to New Jersey.


Here factories were processing fenugreek seeds for food and fragrance additives.


Refl ecting on the conclusion of the investigation in 2009, then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg stated: “Given the evidence, I think it’s safe to say that the ‘Great Maple Syrup Mystery’ has fi nally been solved.”


While the “maple syrup mystery” provided a rare moment of levity in urban monitoring, environmental odours are frequently far more contentious and potentially hazardous.


In the industrial sector, odours, whether pleasant or foul, represent a signifi cant challenge.


They can disrupt local communities and lead to a surge in regulatory complaints. They can even impact the operational welfare of employees.


A critical issue for environmental professionals is the public perception of risk; there is an inherent bias that suggests if an environment smells unpleasant, it must be toxic.


Although the New York syrup scent was eventually deemed harmless, the initial anxiety it caused highlights the need for a scientifi c method of assessment that moves beyond subjective experience.


Formalising odour analysis


To address these complexities, ASTM International’s committee on air quality (D22) has proposed a new practice for Environmental Odor Assessment (WK72782).


This standard represents a strategic shift toward an analytical, odourant-prioritisation-based approach. It provides a technical foundation for problems that have historically been addressed with inconsistent or crisis-driven methodologies.


In announcing the new standard, committee member Jacek Koziel emphasised the practical origins of the framework: “The approach in the proposed standard has emerged for its developers from 30 years of practical application to real-world


industrial and consumer odour-quality problem-solving.


“The diversity of targeted odourous environments has ranged from agricultural to industrial to consumer products.”


For decades, odour analysis was often treated as a secondary concern or a scientifi c curiosity rather than a rigorous discipline.


This lack of standardisation meant that industrial investigations were frequently reactive.


Identifying the “chemical culprits” The core of the proposed standard is the use of structured analytical techniques, such as multidimensional gas chromatography. This helps to isolate the specifi c compounds responsible for a scent profi le.


When you’re dealing with odour


problems in industry, if you’ve got a product that has a malodour and you’re in the business of selling that


product, you really don’t have a choice – you’ve got to solve that problem


By focusing on these “character-defi ning compounds,” researchers can bypass the vast chemical background noise to fi nd a solution more effi ciently.


“When you’re dealing with odour problems in industry, if you’ve got a product that has a malodour and you’re in the business of selling that product, you really don’t have a choice – you’ve got to solve that problem,” says committee member Don Wright, an expert in multidimensional gas chromatography.


“We found that if we can trace an odour character-defi ning compound back to its source, the roadway and distance to a solution can be much shorter.”


One of the methodology’s primary strengths is its ability to simplify the analytical target.


Instead of attempting to catalogue every chemical present in a complex industrial emission, the standard directs investigators to identify the primary drivers of the odour.


As the committee notes: “It’s not necessary to defi ne the extremely complex background that accompanies these critical players.


“What we need to do is fi nd if there’s a character-defi ning compound that’s hidden in that complex emission from that source that is primarily responsible for the problem.


“We’ve learned to not look at the noise that accompanies these critical compounds.”


Complementing the human element WK72782 is intended to serve as a diagnostic screening tool.


It does not aim to replace existing standards that utilise human sensory panels. These remain essential for determining regulatory “acceptability”.


Instead it should provide a chemical blueprint for mitigation.


By identifying the “low-hanging fruit” of odour chemistry, the standard allows fi rms to develop more targeted monitoring and engineering strategies.


“The general impression in the environmental odour arena is that odour is inherently complex, and it is if you look at all of the noise you collect in these environments,” Wright explains.


“But, as it turns out, that’s really not the case.


“In most cases, impactful odours can be relatively simple. It might only be a few compounds, or even a single character- defi ning compound causing the odour.


“That’s what this method specifi cally looks for: screening for low-hanging fruit.


“Let’s make sure there’s not a simple answer before we start generating much more data.”


As regulatory pressure and community expectations regarding air quality continue to rise, the move toward an analytical, compound- specifi c assessment of environmental odours offers the industry a more precise roadmap for compliance and stewardship.


Adapted from the article originally published in ASTM International, with permission from Standardization News.


20


IET - JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2026


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60