0 FCFD 50 Feaf 0117 F 41000000
0 FCFD 50 Feaf 0117 F 41000000
0 FCFD 50 Feaf 0117 F 41000000
Abstract
Complaints by the neighbourhood due to odour pollution from livestock farming are increasing. Therefore, some
countries have already developed guidelines to address odour from livestock. These guidelines are in use to assess the
necessary separation distance between livestock buildings and residential areas such that odour is not felt as an
annoyance. In all these guidelines, the separation distance is calculated as a function of the rate of pollution. These are
mainly power functions with an exponent between 0.3 and 0.5. The Austrian regulatory dispersion model, a Gauss model,
is used to calculate the frequency distribution of the dilution factor for 12 classes of distances between 50 and 500 m
downwind from the source. These data were fitted to an extended Weibull distribution of the dilution factor to determine
the exponent of the power function describing the separation distance as a function of the emission. The exponent has
a value of about 0.72. This result, achieved with a wind and stability statistics representative for the Austrian flatlands
north of the Alps, indicates a stronger dependance of the separation distance from the odour emission than suggested by
the guidelines. 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Odour; Guidelines; Animal; Regulatory model; Gauss model; Separation distance
1352-2310/99/$ - see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 5 2 - 2 3 1 0 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 2 4 0 - 4
2220 M. Piringer, G. Schauberger / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 2219—2228
if the odourant concentration is higher than the calculated with the aid of wind and stability statistics
odour threshold of the substances. Due to fluctuations representative for the Austrian flatlands north of the
an odour sensation can take place even if the mean Alps, the results can be taken as a first step encouraging
odourant concentration is lower than the odour thre- future investigations.
shold. In the next section, the calculation of separation dis-
Odour sensation might cause annoyance depending on tances by various national guidelines is outlined. The
the individual and sociological situation of a person. method to calculate the exponent by the Gauss model is
Local authorities especially seek procedures to cope presented in Section 3. The results and a discussion
with increasing complaints by neighbours. Therefore, follow in Sections 4 and 5.
some countries have already developed guidelines to
address odour from livestock. These guidelines are in
use to assess the necessary separation distance between
2. Separation distance calculated by various national
livestock buildings as the source of odour and resi-
guidelines
dential areas such that odour is not felt as an annoyance.
They are mainly based on a simple parameterisation of
The calculation of a separation distance between resi-
the odour source, the dilution of the emission and
dential houses and livestock buildings is a common ob-
the assessment of the protection level depending on
jective of various guidelines of the European countries.
the land use category. The application results in calcu-
The structure of the guidelines is very similar in most
lating a separation distance to the neighbourhood which
cases. First of all the odour source is assessed by the
guarantees a far-reaching protection against odour an-
number of animals and additionally by some parameters
noyance.
which influence the odour pollution. On the basis of the
In all these guidelines, the separation distance is cal-
odour source, the separation distance is calculated by
culated as a function of the rate of pollution. These are
using an empirical function, generally for the land use
mainly power functions with an exponent between 0.3
category of pure residential areas. In the last step this
and 0.5. The exponent and therefore the shape of the
separation distance is modified by a reduction factor to
curve used describes the sensitivity of the separation
adapt the separation distance to the level of various
distance to the odour pollution. There is, however, no
claims of odour-free environments depending on the land
profound reason for using just this range of exponents
use category.
except the fact that the resulting separation distances are
of the correct order of magnitude, i.e. up to several
hundreds of meters. There is also no systematic verifica- 2.1. Austria
tion of separation distances by olfactometric measure-
ments comprising a lot of livestock farms, topographical The Austrian guideline (Schauberger et al., 1997;
and meteorological conditions. The procedure to deter- Schauberger and Piringer, 1997a, b) is based on a rough
mine the shape of the curve and thereby also the expo- estimate of the source by the following parameters: num-
nent of the function applied in the German guidelines is ber of farm animals, their use and the way they are kept,
discussed by Schirz (1989, 1997). The function was cal- the geometry of the outlet air, the vertical velocity of the
culated by using the threshold distance of odour recogni- outlet air, the manipulation of manure inside the live-
tion of a panel of just 3 or 4 persons. The statistics of stock building, the kind of manure storage and the way of
wind and of stability of the atmosphere was not taken feeding. As a result, the so-called odour number is cal-
into account. The conclusion from single experiments to culated. Thereafter, the separation distance is estimated
a separation distance valid over the whole year seems by a power function using an exponent of 0.5. Next, the
therefore to be weak. dispersion of odour is assessed by modifying the separ-
The motivation of the study presented here is to inves- ation distance. In the Austrian guideline, due to the
tigate if, by using an independant method, the sensitivity mostly complex topography, this step is treated more
of the separation distance to the odour pollution is cor- substantially than elsewhere. The separation distance is
rectly described by the various guidelines. This will be first modified by using the mean distribution of the wind
accomplished by using a Gauss model to derive the direction at the site characterizing the climatological
frequency distribution of the dilution factor during day- situation and second by estimating the predominant lo-
time for distances between 50 and 500 m downwind from cal winds and stability (e.g. valley wind circulation)
the source and fitting these data to an extended Weibull considering the local topography. At the end the legal
distribution of the dilution factor to determine the expo- claim of protection by the surrounding residential areas
nent of the power function describing the separation is additionally taken into account. The treatment of
distance as a function of the emission. The exponent dispersion and legal claim of protection results in a final
calculated will be compared to the exponents of the separation distance depending on the direction to the
guidelines. Since the frequency distributions will be neighbours.
M. Piringer, G. Schauberger / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 2219—2228 2221
2.2. Germany these two factors gives the odour load. The standard
separation distance is calculated by a logarithmic func-
In Germany separate guidelines for pigs (VDI 3471, tion. It is modified by nine factors covering the shape of
1986), cattle (VDI 3473, 1994) and poultry (VDI 3472, the site, the sea level, the manure handling system, the
1986) are used. These three guidelines are well kind of manure which is produced, the cleanliness of
documented and described (Paduch, 1988). the farm, nutrition, ventilation system and measures to
In a first step, the odour source of a livestock farm is abate odour release due to the ventilation system or the
assessed by the number of livestock units (live mass of storage of manure.
animals normalised by 500 kg). In a second step, the In the Swiss guideline, the separation distance is cal-
manure handling, the ventilation system, the type of feed culated by a logarithmic function. This function, in its
and the topography of the site are evaluated by assigning range of validity, can be fit to a power law whose expo-
scores to each category. The scores SC are summed up. nent would be 0.33.
For four different classes of total scores (a value of 100 for
an excellent situation with low odour emission down to 2.4. The Netherlands
a value of 25 for high odour emission in steps of 25), the
separation distances are fixed by graphs. The separation distance is calculated as a function of
For pigs, the separation distance S (m) can be cal- pig fattening places (number of pigs the animal house is
culated by a power law as a function of the emission built for; Ministrie van Landbouw, 1991). For other
E (livestock unit LU, LU"body mass of the animals species a conversion factor is defined in relation to a fat-
normalised by 500 kg) (CIGR, 1994): tening pig. Additional parameters known from other
guidelines already discussed are neglected. The graph of
for a score of 100: S"50.2E (1a) this guideline is fitted to a power function with an expo-
for a score of 25: S"86.3E . (1b) nent of 0.50.
A reduction factor is applied to all these national
Krause (1992) calculates the factor and the exponent guidelines to fit the calculated separation distance to land
by a polynom of second order as use categories (Schauberger and Piringer, 1997a, b). The
shape of the functions used to calculate the separation
S"a (SC) E@ 1! (2)
distance is investigated by using only the values for pure
with a (SC)"a #a SC#a SC (3a) residential areas. In Fig. 1 the separation distances for
fattening pigs are compared for two different cases:
and b (SC)"b #b SC#b SC . (3b) E#/D!, combining a high level of odour (E#) and an
The polynomial coefficients are summarized for pigs unfavourable situation for dilution (D!) and E!/D#,
(VDI 4371, 1986) and for poultry (VDI 4372, 1986) in combining a low odour level (E!) and favourable dilu-
Table 1. tion (D#).
The separation distances, determined by the various
guidelines taking the same odour source scenario into
2.3. Switzerland
account, differ a lot. As apparent from the discussion of
the exponents above, the increase in separation distance
In the Swiss guideline (Richner and Schmidlin, 1995),
with the number of animals is more rapid for the Aus-
the pollution is assessed by the number of animals and
trian and the Dutch compared to the German and the
a weighting factor which depends on the annoying poten-
Swiss guidelines. The Swiss guideline shows the largest,
tial of the kind of animals which are kept. The product of
the German guideline the smallest variation of separ-
ation distances between the most favourable and the
Table 1
most unfavourable situations. The Austrian guideline has
Polynomial coefficients of the factors a(SC) (Eq. (3a)) and the
exponent b (SC) of the power function (Eq. (3b)) for score SC a tendency to estimate lower separation distances than
between 25 and 100 (Krause, 1992) the other guidelines. Fig. 1 clearly shows the need for
investigating the dependance of the separation distance
Polynomial Pigs Poultry from the odour emission by a model independent of the
coefficients VDI 4371, 1986 VDI 4372, 1986 guidelines. The method is explained in the next section.
a 103.027 134.3505
a !0.6963 !1.3979 3. Model calculations and statistics
a 0.00153 0.006847
b 0.307 0.26353
The cumulative frequency distribution of the dilution
b 0.0051 0.001821
factor D is calculated by the Austrian regulatory disper-
b !0.000002 !0.000013
sion model (O®Norm M 9440, 1992/96; Kolb, 1981) by
2222 M. Piringer, G. Schauberger / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 2219—2228
Table 2
Probabilities () of the combinations of atmospheric stability
classes (Reuter, 1970) and wind velocities during daytime repre-
sentative for the Austrian flatlands north of the Alps
2 1 130
2 2 77
2 3 37
2 4 21
3 1 180
3 2 88
3 3 42
3 4 25
3 5 11
3 6 1
4 1 56
4 2 115
4 3 119
Fig. 1. Separation distance S calculated by the Austrian, Ger-
4 4 60
man, Swiss and Dutch (NL) guidelines for fattening pigs. Two 4 5 20
cases: E#/D!, combining a high level of odour (E#) and an 4 6 14
unfavourable situation for dilution (D!); E!/D#, combining
4 7 3
a low odour level (E!) and favourable dilution (D#). The 4 8 1
graph of the Dutch guideline is the minimum separation dis-
tance without any variability depending on the emission or the
dilution. For all guidelines, the separation distance is calculated
for an area which is intended for recreation purpose and pure
speed; however for stability class 4, wind velocities of
residential use.
2 and 3 m s\ are more common than weak winds of
1 m s\.
The regulatory model calculates half hour mean con-
making use of a statistics of stability classes representa-
centrations. The sensation of odour, however, depends
tive for the Austrian flatlands north of the Alps.
on the momentary odour concentration and not on
The regulatory model is a Gaussian plume model
a mean value over a long time of integration. Smith
applied for single stack emissions and distances up to
(1973) gives the following relationship:
15 km. Plume rise formulae used in the model are a com-
bination of formulae suggested by Carson and Moses C t
" (4)
(1969) and Briggs (1975). The model uses a traditional C t
discrete stability classification scheme with dispersion
parameters developed by Reuter (1970). Stability classes with the mean concentration C calculated for an integ-
are determined as a function of half-hourly mean wind ration time of t and the peak concentration C for an
speed and a combination of sun elevation angle and integration time of t . The exponent u depends on the
cloud cover. Within this scheme, classes 2—7 can occur in stability of the atmosphere and assumes values of 0.35
Austria. Stability classes 2 and 3 occur during daytime in (class 4), 0.52 (class 3) and 0.65 (class 2). From wind
a well-mixed boundary layer, class 3 allowing also for spectrum analysis (Courtney et al., 1990), short-term con-
cases of high wind velocity and moderate cloud cover. centration fluctuations peak at about 100 s. Using
Class 4 is representative for cloudy and/or windy condi- t "1800 s and t "100 s, the following peak to mean
tions including precipitation or fog and can occur day factors, depending on atmospheric stability, are derived:
and night. In the flatlands, it is by far the most common 6.5 for diffusion category 2, 4.5 for diffusion category
dispersion category. Classes 5—7 occur at night, static 3 and 2.8 for diffusion category 4.
stability increasing with class number. The model calculations were done for nine scenarios
In the following, the daytime situation during summer with the relative emission varying between 0.04 and 4.
will be investigated. The statistics of dispersion condi- The odour concentration of this volume flow was as-
tions, i.e. the probabilities of the combinations of stability sumed to be constant with 500 OU m\ (Oldenburg,
classes and wind velocities used, is given in Table 2. The 1989; Krause, 1992). The result of the model calculation
sum of probabilities amounts to 1000 (all cases). The is the cumulative frequency distribution of the peak
probabilities generally decrease with increasing wind (maximum) concentrations derived for all combinations
M. Piringer, G. Schauberger / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 2219—2228 2223
of stability class and wind velocity (Table 2). This calcu- with the cumulated probability of the model calculation
lation is done for 10 distances from the pollutant source P , the fitted distribution model PK and the mean value
H H
starting with 50 m up to 500 m in increments of 50 m. PM , the number of data points n, the number of coefficients
These data were fitted to an extended Weibull distribu- m (for the extended WBD m"3, for the power function
tion WBD of the dilution factor D, defined as the ratio of m"2).
the constant odour concentration of the volume flow to
The RMSE is calculated by
the peak concentration at a distance x :
G
L (P !PK )
D!D B RMSE" H H H (7)
WBD (x )"1!exp ! (5) n!m
G c
with the same units as the P and PK .
with the three parameters D , c and d. The advantage of H H
The F value is given by
the extended Weibull distribution compared to the nor-
mal one is the parameter D used as an off-set of the L (P !PM )! L (P !PK )
H H H H H
distribution, so that the probability is zero for a dilution m!1
factor smaller than D (Fig. 2). Measurements by Jones F" . (8)
L (P !pK )
(1979) demonstrate the suitability of this distribution to H H H
(n!m)
fit the calculated dilution factors.
The parameters were fitted by an iterative method on The F value can be interpreted as the quotient between
the basis of minimizing the square residuals. Three stat- the variance about the mean and the variance caused by
istical parameters were used to evaluate the goodness of the model. The value can be used to describe how accu-
the fit: (1) the coefficient of determination r, adjusted to rately a given model can describe the data. For larger
the degree of freedom (Eq. (6)), (2) the root mean square values of F, the variance of the fitted data is reduced due
error of the fitted function RMSE (Eq. (7)) and (3) the to good selection of the function and its parameters.
F value used to describe the suitability of the selected The fitted distribution functions were used to calculate
distribution (Eq. (8)). the appropriate distance where the requirements are ful-
The coefficient of determination r, adjusted to the filled that for an exceeding probability p"30 over the
degree of freedom is given by: summer half-year (April—September) the limiting dilution
factor D is equal to 500, resulting in an odour concentra-
L (P !PK ) n!1 *
r"1! H H H (6) tion at the receptor point of 1 OU m\ for this period.
L (P !PM ) n!m!1
H H This concentration is equivalent to the threshold value of
odour sensation. The exceeding probability selected is
based on the threshold values which are used in some
European countries (Kypke, 1994; Hobson, 1997). The
combination p"30 and D "500 is mainly used for
*
pure residential areas in Germany.
In Fig. 2, the linear interpolation is demonstrated for
an example of a relative emission of 1.00. The distance for
a given dilution factor and exceeding probability (in this
case D "500; p"30) is calculated by linear interpo-
*
lation (see also enlarged part of Fig. 2):
x !x
x"x # (D !D ) (9)
D !D N *
N N
with the distances x and x for which the distribution
function was fitted, the dilution factors D and D cal-
N N
culated for a certain exceeding probability (here 30) by
the inverse Weibull distribution WBD\ and the lower
Fig. 2. Example of the linear interpolation of the separation limit of the dilution factor D (here 500). The inverse
distance for an exceeding probability of 30 (dotted line in the *
Weibull distribution WBD\ is given by
enlarged part) and a dilution factor of 500 which gives an odour
concentration of 1 OU m\ . The two Weibull distribution WBD\(p)"D #c [!ln (1!p)]B (10)
functions WBD for a distance x "250 m and x "300 m
with the three function parameters D , c and d of Eq. (5).
(empty symbols) are calculated for a relative emission of 1.00
(bold line in Table 3). Besides the two fitted WBD, the corre- The distance x can be interpreted as a separation dis-
sponding values of the Gaussian model calculation are shown, tance S, valid for a certain exceeding probability (here
too (model calculation M; filled symbols). p"30) and a dilution factor (here D "500). By linear
*
2224 M. Piringer, G. Schauberger / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 2219—2228
Parameters of the extended Weibull distribution WBD (Eq. (5)) for the model calculation and statistical parameters of the fit. For each case of relative emission rate, the upper and
lower WBD was selected, for which the separation distance was calculated by linear interpolation for a dilution factor of D "500 and the exceeding probability p"30. The bold
interpolation between the extended Weibull distributions
line indicates the values used for Fig. 2. (The values of the fit and the linear interpolation of exceeding probabilities of 10, 50, and 80, respectively are not presented in this table)
interpolation
for a distance of x "250 m and x "300 m, a separ-
ation distance x of 276 m is calculated (Fig. 2).
Linear
The separation distances x were calculated for all nine
50
85
117
143
276
433
655
724
emission cases. For the first case (relative emission 0.04)
x
the separation distance was smaller than 50 m so that
RMSE
this case was not used for further calculations. A power
79.84
78.40
41.96
57.53
47.75
34.21
68.58
38.46
function was fitted to these eight distances x.
117.03
121.65
448.53
235.46
384.14
735.67
163.69
316.69
with the relative separation distance S (p, D) depending
F
on the emission E and the two function parameters a
0.9269
0.9295
0.9800
0.9625
0.9767
0.9877
0.9468
0.9749
and b.
1.4633
1.4156
1.6396
1.2743
1.2959
1.0538
1.6026
1.2373
4. Results
d
*
The dependance of the separation distance on the
1191.3
591.6
812.3
576.2
919.6
991.3
1326.0
1442.9
emission among the different guidelines was the primary
interest of this investigation. Instead of an absolute com-
c
parison of separation distances, a comparison of the
exponent b of the power function and therefore the shape
1100.0
547.6
599.9
499.3
499.6
500.0
465.7
472.8
of the curves was intended.
Upper WBD
D
The result of the fitted WBD (Eq. (5)), which is used for
the interpolation, is summarized in Table 3. Besides these
parameters, also the statistical parameters to evaluate the
100
100
150
150
300
450
700
750
x
fit parameters r (Eq. (6)), RMSE (Eq. (7)) and F (Eq. (8))
and the distance x calculated by linear interpolation (Eq.
RMSE
53.25
52.34
82.98
80.66
59.16
36.54
56.82
45.50
(9)) for an exceeding probability of p"30 are shown.
The parameters are calculated for eight emission scen-
arios from a relative emission of 0.10 up to 4.0. For each
332.14
344.15
106.88
114.06
239.69
643.81
244.71
235.36
case the upper (x ) and lower (x ) fit of the extended
Weibull distribution is used to calculate the threshold
F
D
(7)) and RMSE (Eq. (8)) of the data fit are given.
Relative emission x
Table 4
Exponent b of the power function (fitted values$standard deviation) describing the separation distance S as a function of the emission
E for four different exceeding probabilities. The dilution factor was fixed to 500 so that the odour concentration is 1 OU m for the
calculated separation distance
5. Discussion
be applied for distances equal to or larger than 100 m. (Eq. (4)) ranging between 0.12 and 0.86 (0.5 on average).
Treating more complex meteorological or topographic Short-term peak values can reach up to ten times the
conditions, more elaborate dispersion models have to be half-hour mean value. The German TA-Luft (Jost, 1997)
used. The restrictions are, however, not very severe be- recommends a peak-to-mean ratio of 10 as an upper
cause a lot of large livestock farms in Austria are situated limit.
in rather flat terrain. Concentrations during calm wind The problem of odour regulation is summarized by
conditions could be considered in a first step according Nicell (1994) discussing the whole chain of odour sensa-
to O®Norm M9440 (1992/96) by multiplying by 1.5 the tion (detection 1 OU m\), discrimination (3 OU m\),
concentration for 1 m s\ and the appropriate stability unmistakable perception (5 OU m\, complaint level),
class. and as a last step the degree of annoyance. The impor-
The statistics of stability classes used for the calcu- tance of hedonistic effects of odours is shown by compar-
lation of the frequencies of the dilution factors is repre- ing the assessment of odour intensity with the odour
sentative for the Austrian flatlands north of the Alps. concentration: pleasant odours are more favourably as-
These areas are characterized by good ventilation sessed than unpleasant ones even if concentrations are
throughout the year, so complex flow structures like equal (Hangartner, 1988 and 1990; Paduch, 1988). Bundy
periodically changing wind regimes or frequent stagnant et al. (1997) showed that by selecting a power law the
wind situations, when the regulatory model cannot be intensity of odour of pigs can be described by the odour
applied, do not occur. concentration with an exponent in the range of 0.52—0.71.
The selected odour concentration of the source is equal The relationship between odour concentration and the
to a rough estimate for a pig fattening unit based on degree of annoyance seems to be weak in general because
measurements of Oldenburg (1989). The agricultural a covariance of only 10—20% is reported by Pulles and
structure of the investigated livestock farms is very sim- Cavalini (1990).
ilar to the Austrian ones. The dilution factors are cal- On the other hand not only the odour concentration
culated for summertime conditions. During summer, the and the hedonic character of the odour is important but
odour annoyance is far more pronounced than in winter also the persistance of odour sensation. Winneke et al
because people intend to stay out more frequently or (1990) give an exceeding probability of 3 to 5% of the
keep windows open. Moreover, the odour concentration year for an average sensitive person. In Germany the
of the outlet air of livestock buildings increase with exceeding probability depends on the land use category.
temperature (Oldenburg, 1989). The calculations were Besides the exceeding probability, also the odour concen-
done for daytime conditions. They are more easily as- tration is relevant for this assessment. The following
sessed because dilution is a function of distance during limits are in use in Germany: For pure residential areas
daytime. Vertical mixing decreases depending on the the exceeding probability has to be lower than 3% and
static stability of the atmosphere, being rigorous for 1 OU m\, residential and structured areas 5% and
stability class 2 and not very important for class 4. At 1 OU m\, restricted business areas and village area with
night, vertical mixing is severely limited, and pollutants mixed utilisation 8% and 1 OU m or 3% and 3 OU m,
are transported across long distances most of the time, and village-areas with predominantly agricultural utilis-
concentrations decreasing only slowly. Dilution is there- ation 10% and 1 OU m or 5% and 3 OU m (Knauer,
fore not a function of distance within the area relevant for 1994; Kypke, 1994). The limits used in the UK are sum-
such an investigation (about 500 m from the source). marized in Table 5.
Forecasting concentrations at night by a simple model The model calculation showed that the shape (expo-
like the Gauss model imposes a lot of uncertainties, nent b) of the separation curve is independent of the
because a steady state as required by the model will not selected exceeding probability (Table 4). This means that
be achieved in reality in most cases. Phenomena occur- the different limits of the exceeding probability of odour
ring at night like wind shear, low-level jets or gravity concentration due to different land use categories can be
waves cannot be treated by the Gaussian model. Re- taken into account by changing the multiplier of the
cently, the regulatory model has been evaluated with power function (factor a) as it is done by the guidelines
international data sets (Pechinger and Petz, 1995), where- (Schauberger and Piringer, 1997a, b). The increase of the
by rather good results have been achieved for daytime goodness of the fit with increasing exceeding probability
conditions. can be explained by the fact that the uncertainty of the fit
The regulatory model calculates half-hour mean con- increases towards the tails of the fitted function (Fig. 2).
centrations. The sensation of odour, however, depends Until now no suitable model is available in order to
on the momentary odour concentration and not on assess the annoyance by odour from the odour concen-
a mean value over a long time of integration. The peak- tration and the persistence of the odour sensation. The
to-mean ratios used here are stability-dependant (Smith, evaluation of the guidelines done in this paper was based
1973). They are of a similar range as those given by on the maximum odour concentration. Under the as-
Briggs (1973) and EPRI (1981) with the exponent u sumption that the ratio between the calculated odour
M. Piringer, G. Schauberger / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 2219—2228 2227
Table 5
Limits of odour concentration and exceeding probability used in the UK (Hobson, 1997). The dilution factor was calculated assuming
an odour emission concentration of 500 OU m\
concentration by the Gauss model and the annoying EPRI, 1981. Nuclear Power Plant Building Wake Effects on
level is constant, the results of the model calculation can Atmospheric Pollutants: Simulation in Wind Tunnel. Elec-
be used as relative values. tric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.
The results obtained in this study concerning the de- Hangartner, M., 1988. Odour measurement and assessment of
pendence of the separation distance from the odour emis- odour annoyance in Switzerland. In: Nielsen, V.C., Voorburg,
J.H., L’Hermite, P. (Eds.), Volatile Emissions From Live-
sion of livestock farms cannot be generalized for the
stock Farming and Sewage Operation. Elsevier, London.
reasons stated above. They suggest, however, that the
Hangartner, M., 1990. Zusammenhang zwischen Geruchskon-
current regulations for calculating separation distances zentration, Intensität und hedonischer Geruchswirkung. In:
should be modified. A more thorough investigation in- Gerüche—Stand der Erkenntnisse zur Ermittlung von Be-
cluding a sensitivity analysis with respect to meteorologi- lastung und Belästigung, Düsseldorf: VDI-Kommission
cal parameters or source configurations seems necessary Reinhaltung der Luft, Band 12.
before proposals for such modifications can be done Hobson, J., 1997. Personal communication.
seriously. Such investigations will be undertaken in Aus- Jones, C.D., 1979. Statistics on the concentration fluctuations in
tria in the near future. short range atmospheric diffusion. In: Harris, C. (Ed.), Math-
ematical Modelling of Turbulent Diffusion in the Environ-
ment. pp. 277—295.
Jost, D. (Ed.), 1997. Die neue TA Luft. WEKA Fachverlag für
References technische Führungskräfte GmbH, Augsburg, März 1997.
Knauer, W., 1994. Prognose und Bewertung von Geruchsemis-
Briggs, G.A., 1973. Diffusion estimation for small emissions. sionen and Geruchsimmssionen. In: Immissionschutz in der
ATDL Contribution file No. 79. Landwirtschaft, Darmstadt: Kuratorium für Technik und
Briggs, G.A., 1975. Plume rise predictions. Lectures on Air Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL), Arbeitspapier
Pollution and Environmental Impact Analysis. AMS, Bos- 207.
ton, pp. 59—111. Kolb, H., 1981. Ein normatives Modell zur Simulierung der
Bundy, D.S., Chen, Y.C., Hoff, S.J., Zhu, J., 1997. Modelling Ausbreitung von Schadstoffen in der Atmosphäre unter be-
odour intensity for swine units. In: Voermans, J.A.M., Mon- sonderer Berücksichtigung der Verhältnisse in O®sterreich.
teny, G.J. (Eds.), Ammonia and Odour Emission from Ani- Abteilung für Theoretische Meteorologie der Univ. Wien.
mal Production Facilities. NVTL, Rosmalen, pp. 83—91. Publ. 29
Carson, J., Moses, H., 1969. The validity of several plume rise Krause, K.H., 1992. Gegenüberstellung unterschiedlicher Im-
formulas. Journal of Air Pollution and Control Assessment missionsprognoseverfahren. In: Geruchs- und Schadgasemis-
19, 862—866. sionen aus der Tierhaltung, Darmstadt: Kuratorium für
CIGR Commission International du Génie Rural, 1994. Aerial Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL),
Environment in Animal Housing. Concentration in and Arbeitspapier 174.
Emission from Farm Buildings, Rennes, CEMAGREF. Kypke, J., 1994. Die Anwendung des Bundes-Immissionsschut-
Courtney, M., Troen, I., 1990. Wind speed spectrum from one zgesetzes in Meklenburg-Vorpommern. In: Immissionschutz
year of continuous 8 Hz measurements. In: 9th Symposium in der Landwirtschaft, Darmstadt: Kuratorium für Technik
on Turbulence and Diffusion, 30.4.—3.5.1990, Roskilde, und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL), Arbeits-
Denmark, pp. 301—304. papier 207.
2228 M. Piringer, G. Schauberger / Atmospheric Environment 33 (1999) 2219—2228
Ministrie van Landbouw, 1991. Richtlijn Ammoniak en Voermans J.A.M., Monteny, G.J., (Eds.), Ammonia and
Veehouderij. Leidschendam: Ministrie van Landbouw, Odour Emission from Animal Production Facilities, NVTL,
Naturbeheer en Visserij, Den Haag en Ministrie van Volk- Rosmalen, 1997.
shuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer. Schauberger, G., Piringer, M., 1997b. Guideline to assess the
Nicell, J.A., 1994. Development of the odour impact model as protection distance to avoid annoyance by odour sensation
a regulatory strategy. International Journal of Environment caused by livestock husbandry. In: Bottcher R.W., Hoff, S.J.,
and Pollution 4, 124—138. (Eds.), Livestock Environment V. ASAE, St. Joseph, Michi-
Oldenburg, J., 1989. Geruchs- und Ammoniak-Emissionen aus gan, 1997.
der Tierhaltung, Darmstadt: Kuratorium für Technik und Schauberger, G., Piringer, M., Eder, J., Fiebiger, H., Köck, M.,
Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL), KTBL-Schrift Lazar, R., Pichler-Semmelrock, F., Quendler, T., Swoboda,
333. M., Thiemann, G., Teufelhart, J., 1997. O®sterreichische
O®NORM M9440, 1992/1996. Ausbreitung von luftverun- Richtlinie zur Beurteilung von Immissionen aus der Nut-
reinigenden Stoffen in der Atmosphäre; Berechnung von ztierhaltung in Stallungen. Gefahrstoffe-Reinhaltung der
Immissionskonzentrationen und Ermittlung von Schorn- Luft 57(10), 399—408.
steinhöhen. O®sterr. Normungsinstitut, Fachnormenaus- Schirz, St., 1989. Handhabung der VDI-Richtlinien 3471
schu{ 139-Luftreinhaltung. Schweine und 3472 Hühner Emissionsminderung der Tier-
Paduch, M., 1988. Present state of VDI-guide lines on odour haltung, Darmstadt: Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen
assessment. In: Nielsen, V.C., Voorburg, J.H., L’Hermite, P., in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL), KTBL Arbeitspapier Nr.
(Eds.). Volatile Emissions From Livestock Farming and 126.
Sewage Operation. Elsevier, London. Schirz, St., 1997. Möglichkeiten der Beurteilung von Ger-
Pechinger, U., Petz, E., 1995. Model evaluation of the Austrian üchen—Entstehung und Anwendungsvoraussetzungen der
Gaussian plume model ON M 9440: comparison with the VDI-Richtlinien ‘‘Emissionsminderung Tierhaltung’’. In:
Kincaid dataset. International Journal of Environment and Geruchsemissionen aus der Landwirtschaft. Darmstadt:
Pollution 5, 338—349. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirt-
Pulles, M.P.J., Cavalini, P., 1990. Geruchstoffkonzentration und schaft e.V. (KTBL), KTBL Arbeitspapier Nr. 244.
Geruchsbelästigung: Ergebnisse von zwei Feldstudien. In: Smith, M.E., 1973. Recommended Guide for the Prediction of
Gerüche — Stand der Erkenntnisse zur Ermittlung von the Dispersion of Airborne Effluents. ASME, N.Y.
Belastung und Belästigung, Düsseldorf: VDI-Kommission Summer, W., 1970. Geruchlosmachung von Luft und Abwassser.
Reinhaltung der Luft, Band 12. Oldenburg München.
Reuter, H., 1970. Die Ausbreitungsbedingungen von Luftver- VDI 3471, 1986. Emissionsminderung Tierhaltung—Hühner,
unreinigungen in Abhängigkeit von meteorologischen Beuth, Berlin.
Parametern. Archiv fuer Meteorologic, Geophysik und VDI 3472, 1986. Emissionsminderung Tierhaltung—Schwein,
Bioklimeologic Serie A 19 173—186 Beuth, Berlin: Beuth.
Richner, B., Schmidlin, A., 1995. Mindestabstände von Tierhal- VDI 3473, 1994. Emissionsminderung Tierhaltung—Rinder,
tungsanlagen. Empfehlungen für neue und bestehende Berlin: Beuth.
Betriebe, Tänikon: Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt Winneke, G., Harkort, Ratzki, E., 1990. Zusammenhänge zwi-
für Betriebswirtschaft und Landtechnik, FAT-Bericht schen Gruchshäufigkeit und Belästigungsgrad (Relationship
476. between odour probability and the degree of annoyance). In:
Schauberger, G., Piringer, M., 1997a. Assessment of the protec- Gerüche — Stand der Erkenntnisse zur Ermittlung von
tion distance to avoid annoyance by odour sensation caused Belastung und Belästigung, Düsseldorf: VDI-Kommission
by livestock husbandry by the Austrian guide line. In: Reinhaltung der Luft, Band 12.