New odor management Regulations for Farms

New Farm Odor Management Regulations to Take Effect Feb. 27

Expansions Required to Develop Odor Management

New regulations to manage odors from newly constructed animal barns and certain other agricultural operations will help minimize the potential for conflicts between neighbors, Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff said today."With increasing development and urban sprawl, Pennsylvanians are moving closer and closer to their farming neighbors," said Wolff. "These new regulations are geared to help minimize conflict between those not accustomed to farm odors and the agricultural producers working to meet our increasing world food needs." As directed by Pennsylvania's Facility Odor Management Regulations in Act 38 of 2005, beginning Feb. 27, any concentrated animal operation or concentrated animal feeding operation - known as CAOs and CAFOs - that builds or expands an animal barn or manure storage facility is required to develop an odor management plan. CAOs and CAFOs are agricultural facilities that house and feed a large number of animals in a confined area. The odor management plans must be developed by an odor management specialist certified under the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and approved by the State Conservation Commission. Each plan should list best odor management practices if the on-site evaluation or the odor site index indicates there is a medium or high potential for affecting the facility's neighbors. The odor site index takes into account issues such as the scope and type of operation, as well as the number and location of farm neighbors. The on-site evaluation is conducted using the odor site assessment tool developed by the State Conservation Commission and Penn State University. Examples of best management practices may include cleaning and sanitizing buildings, maintaining ventilation system, installing manure aeration systems, composting manure, or controlling moisture levels in the barns.The regulations do not affect existing animal housing or manure storage facilities, nor are there any requirements relating to land applications of manure. However, any agricultural operation may volunteer to address new or existing facilities in an odor management plan developed under this program. For more information on the odor management program or the odor management specialist certification program, visit www.agriculture.state.pa.us/scc and click on "Odor Management Program," or contact odor management program coordinator Karl Dymond at 570-836-2181 or kdymond@state.pa.us.
CONTACT: Jean Kummer
717-787-5085
SOURCE Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

http://anotec.com.au

Residents raise a big stink over plan to treat sewage odours in their backyard

Pickering residents fuming over odour control

Residents raise a big stink over plan to treat sewage odours in their backyard

Jan 29, 2009 04:30 AM

CAROLA VYHNAK 
URBAN AFFAIRS REPORTER

They don't like what's coming down the pipe. And they're vowing to stop it.

Pickering residents say a proposed odour-control facility to be built near their homes for treating fumes from York Region's sewage will foul the air, lower property values and destroy valuable farmland.

The anticipated smell is bad enough, says Stop the Stink, a community group fighting the proposal – which is awaiting the province's approval – but the perceived silence around the project has really put their noses out of joint.

Residents in the Altona Rd. and Finch Ave. E. area weren't told how close the facility would be to their homes, or informed about odour complaints and breakdowns at an older structure farther south, Devi Gopalan said yesterday when 25 opponents took the fight to Durham Region council.

Gopalan, who learned about the facility two days after she moved in last October, told councillors 2,000 people have signed a petition opposing the plan.

"Odour-control facilities smell, no matter how much they say they don't," she said in an interview.

Proponents from York and Durham Region deny that residents have been kept in the dark.

"There's a lot of misinformation floating around," says John Presta, Durham's director of environmental services. "It's not a sewage treatment plant and it doesn't create odours – it treats odours."

The community has been kept informed with meetings, flyers and newspaper ads dating back to June 2007, said Wayne Green, project manager for York. He says another meeting is planned for next month.

The facility is part of the expansion – needed to keep up with urban growth – of the York-Durham Sewage System, known as the Big Pipe. It would filter and release airflow from the sewer that carries raw sewage to a treatment plant in Pickering.

The proposed site, on 10 hectares of protected agricultural land, 300 metres south of the Cherrywood West subdivision, will have the least environmental impact and no effect on wildlife, said Green.

"The engineers have said the level of risk of odours is equivalent to a lottery ... no chance," he said, because it will use both biofilter technology and charcoal filters.

Such assurances haven't stopped residents from worrying.

Griselda Alfonso told councillors while she's "passionate" about raising her three children in Pickering, the family lives 350 metres from the planned facility. "We'll always be confronted with a 40-foot stack that will be venting treated sewage gases. The last thing I expected when we built our dream home was that we'd be subjected to sewage odours."

York's sewage belongs in York, 100 opponents said at a meeting last week.

"The technology is new and unproven," campaign organizer Pete Herman said. "No one's told us what's coming out of this 40-foot smokestack. Is it bad for us?"

Durham Region's Presta defends the facility's location by comparing it to an exhaust fan in a bathroom. "You wouldn't put the fan in another room to deal with odours in the washroom."

From an operational and technical standpoint, the best spot is at a drop in the pipe, he said.

But Bonnie Littley, a councillor for Pickering and Durham Region, is upset no alternatives were considered that would have avoided residential areas. And she disputes whether there was adequate public consultation.

"People didn't realize how this would affect them. Now they're freaking out, and fears get blown out of proportion."

Opponents expect to speak their minds again at the Feb. 25 meeting of Durham's works committee.

Construction is to start next year with completion expected in 2012.

Like cheese and onion: Scientists sniff out men and women's distinctive odours

By DAVID DERBYSHIRE

Little girls may be made of sugar, spice and all things nice - but their underarms smell of onions and grapefruit, scientists say.

Men, on the other hand, are more likely to whiff of pungent cheese after a hard day at work.

These are the conclusions from a bizarre study which investigated the distinctive armpit odours of men and women.

Pungent: Women's sweat smells of onion and grapefruit

The research, led by some of the world's most respected smell scientists, could lead to a new understanding of body odour - and a new range of deodorants designed to tackle the unique smells of men and women.

Scientists at Firmenich, a company in Geneva that researches flavours and smells for the food and perfume industry, took samples of armpit sweat from 24 men and 25 women after they had spent time in a sauna or 15 minutes on an exercise bike.

The volunteers were asked to wash before the experiment and avoid wearing any perfumes or deodorants that could confuse the results.

To their surprise, the team found strong differences between the sexes.

Christian Starkenmann, who led the study, said: 'Men smell of cheese, and women of grapefruit or onion.'

When the armpit samples were analysed, the team found that women's sweat contained relatively high amounts of an odourless sulphur-containing compound, New Scientist magazine reports today.

When this substance was mixed with bacteria usually found in people's armpits, it was transformed into a chemical called thiol - which was already well known to the scientists for its onion-like smell.

Men sweating - like British tennis player Greg Rusedski - apparently smell like cheese

The more of the sulphur-compound they added, the stronger and more overpowering the smell became.

The men, on the other hand, had a different chemical mix in their sweat. The researchers found high levels of an odourless fatty acid which released a cheesy smell when it was exposed to enzymes produced by armpit bacteria.

Although men are traditionally supposed to smell worse then men, a  team of independent testers recruited by the Geneva scientists described the smell from women's armpits as the more unpleasant.

Dr Starkenmann hopes to use the findings to develop deodorants aimed at particular sexes. The deodorants could either knock out the unique substances in sweat - or that prevent bacteria converting them into smelly chemicals.

However, not all scientists are convinced that the experiment can be repeated outside Switzerland.

They say the distinctive chemicals found in the armpits of the Swiss volunteers might not be found in armpits elsewhere in the world where people have different diets and genes.

Professor Tim Jacob who researchers the science of smell at Cardiff University, said: 'Other factors include what you eat, what you wash with, what you wear and what genes you inherit.'

Earlier this month, scientists in Texas, revealed that women can sense if a man is attracted to her by the smell of his armpit sweat.

in a blind test, female volunteers preferred the sweat taken from men when they were aroused.

Studies have also shown that people can tell if others are scared or stressed by smelling their sweat.

Reinvigorated environmental focus for NSW councils

29 NSW Councils are set to undergo specialist training to make sure that their local government areas are using the best possible techniques to ensure their community’s ecological future.

The training, presented by the Urban Sustainability Support Alliance (USSA) will take place in nine councils and two Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs), which represent a further 20 councils.

The list includes Bathurst City Council, Canada Bay Council, Coffs Harbour City Council, Holroyd City Council, Goulburn – Mulwaree Council, Strathfield Municipal Council, Tumut Shire Council, Wakool Shire Council, Yass Shire Council and Namoi ROC and Riverina and Murray Regional ROC. 
Local Government Association President, Cr Genia McCaffrey, congratulates the Councils chosen to take part.

“Training such as this is essential to make sure that local councils are taking the steps needed now to ensure a sustainable future for their communities,” she said.

“The training is aimed at sparking action within councils, and helping staff bring about the organisational change we need for ecologically sustainable development.

“And our peer program will help those councils pass on valuable points to other councils around NSW.”

“It will put them in good stead to make sure that they are doing the best for both their current and future communities.”

President of the Shires Association, Cr Bruce Miller, said that planning for a sustainable future is also essential for councils outside the greater metropolitan area.

“As close as we are to our communities, we are in a unique position to influence environmental measures that will mean a better quality of life for our future society,” he said.

“At the same time we must also make sure that the needs of our current communities are being met.

“Our councils will be in a better place to appreciate the benefits of ecologically sustainable development and understand how to incorporate it into their management plan and policies.

“Our aim is to have NSW councils consider the sustainability impact of every decision that they make.”

Councils across NSW were invited to apply for the training. Each of the successful councils or ROCs will receive a minimum of two full days of customised in-house training.

The Urban Sustainability Support Alliance (USSA), formed in 2007, is a partnership of organisations that helps councils to make sustainability a key part of their planning and practices and to make sure that lessons they learn are shared.

It is assisted by the NSW Environmental Trust, through its Urban Sustainability Program, and is coordinated by the Local Government and Shires Associations. 
 

The scent of a man

The scent of a man

From The Economist print edition

To attract a woman by wearing scent, a man must first attract himself

Getty Images

THE very word “perfume” has feminine overtones to many male ears. Men can be sold “deodorant” and possibly “aftershave”, but the idea of all those dinky little bottles with their fussy paraphernalia is too much for the sensitive male ego. Yet no industry can afford to neglect half its potential market, and perfume-makers are ever keen to crack the shell of male reticence. Now they may know how to do so.

Craig Roberts of the University of Liverpool and his colleagues—working with a team from Unilever’s research laboratory at nearby Port Sunlight—have been investigating the problem. They already knew that appropriate scents can improve the mood of those who wear them. What they discovered, though, as they will describe in a forthcoming edition of the International Journal of Cosmetic Science, is that when a man changes his natural body odour it can alter his self-confidence to such an extent that it also changes how attractive women find him.

Half of Dr Roberts’s volunteers were given an aerosol spray containing a commercial formulation of fragrance and antimicrobial agents. The other half were given a spray identical in appearance but lacking active ingredients. The study was arranged so that the researchers did not know who had received the scent and who the dummy. Each participant obviously knew what he was spraying on himself, since he could smell it. But since no one was told the true purpose of the experiment, those who got the dummy did not realise they were being matched against people with a properly smelly aerosol.

Over the course of several days, Dr Roberts’s team conducted a battery of psychological tests on both groups of volunteers. They found that those who had been given the commercial fragrance showed an increase in self-confidence. Not that surprising, perhaps. What was surprising was that their self-confidence improved to such an extent that women who could watch them but not smell them noticed. The women in question were shown short, silent videos of the volunteers. They deemed the men wearing the deodorant more attractive. They were, however, unable to distinguish between the groups when shown only still photographs of the men, suggesting it was the men’s movement and bearing, rather than their physical appearance, that was making the difference.

For Unilever and other manufacturers of men’s scent, this is an important discovery. The firm’s marketing of its main product in this area, a deodorant called Lynx, plays up the so-called “Lynx Effect”—which is supposed to make men irresistibly attractive to women. Dr Roberts’s experiment, however, suggests that the advertised “Born chicka wah wah” of the product may have nothing to do with a woman’s appreciation of the smell, and everything to do with its psychological effect on the man wearing it.

Nor is this the only example of science illuminating the true role of perfumes. How they work to make people attractive is, as this example shows, not as obvious as it might seem.

Born chicka wah, ker-ching chicka ching

There are three broad theories of perfume use. One is that people employ it to mask body odours that they perceive as bad. The second is that some perfumes contain chemicals that mimic human pheromones—elusive, mysterious (and possibly mythical) substances believed by some to play a role in mating. The third is that people use it to heighten or fortify natural scent, and thus advertise sexual attractiveness or availability.

All three theories could be true. In particular, the role of perfume as an olfactory disguise is obvious. Even here, however, there are some subtle twists. Bad smells are not just a matter of poor hygiene. Illness and old age both bring characteristic odours of their own, and neither state makes people more attractive. Perfumes may spoof these messages. Hence the marketing of a new scent called Ageless Fantasy, by Harvey Prince, which claims its product disguises the “odour of ageing”, suggested to be caused by the breakdown of a particular fatty acid in the skin.

As to pheromones, whether humans have these is questionable. A pheromone is a chemical that elicits a specific behavioural response at a distance. Some insects, for example, can release sex pheromones that will attract a mate from many kilometres away. The most likely human candidate is a substance called androstadienone. This is a derivative of testosterone that is found in men’s sweat and is known, from brain-scanning studies, to promote activity in parts of women’s brains. That this results in changes in behaviour has not, however, been clearly demonstrated.

Terri Molnar, a spokeswoman for the Sense of Smell Institute, a research organisation in New York tied to the fragrance industry, says of human pheromones, “I think we believe they exist but they do not function as an attractant. They will elevate one’s mood but not attract a mate.”

The fallen sons of Eve?

The most interesting area, though, is the interaction between perfumes and natural scents that carry messages but do not have the specific properties of pheromones. Odours co-ordinate a wide range of human behaviour. Mothers can recognise their children by smell. Children can recognise each other. Relatives can be distinguished from non-relatives, even to the extent of understanding who is genetically different enough from the smeller to be a good choice of mate. The sexes themselves smell different, too, and women can glean information about a man’s social status from his smell alone.

As long ago as the 1950s, a perfumer called Paul Jellinek noted that several ingredients of incense resembled scents of the human body. It was not until 2001, however, that Manfred Milinski and Claus Wedekind of the University of Bern wondered whether there was a correlation between the perfume a woman preferred and her own natural scent. They found that there is.

The correlation is with the genes of what is known as the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). This region of the genome encodes part of the immune system. It turns out that one of the most important aspects of mate choice in mammals, humans included, is to make sure that your mate’s MHC is different from your own. Mixing up MHCs makes the immune system more effective. The MHC is also thought to act as a proxy for general outbreeding, with all the hybrid vigour that can bring. Fortunately, then, evolution has equipped mammals with the ability to detect by smell chemicals whose concentrations vary with differences in the MHC of the producer.

That means people are able to sniff out suitable MHC genomes in prospective partners. A woman, for instance, will prefer the smell of T-shirts that have been worn by men whose MHC genes are appropriately different from her own. Dr Milinski and Dr Wedekind also found an association between a woman’s MHC genes and some of her preferences for perfume. Perception of musk, rose and cardamom is correlated with the MHC. Perception of castoreum and cedar is not.

Women, it seems, choose not the kind of smell they would like on a partner, or even one that might mask a nasty odour of their own, but rather something that matches their MHC. In other words, they are advertising their own scent.

There are many useful inferences that might be drawn from this research. One would be that a woman’s choice of perfume will resist the vagaries of fashion. This may explain why most innovation in the industry involves changes in packaging and marketing, producing all that fussy paraphernalia, rather than changing what is in the bottle.

Another implication, says Dr Roberts, is that it is probably best that people choose perfumes for themselves rather than for someone else—unless they happen to know what the recipient likes. If you have made a good genetic choice of partner (ie, someone with a significantly different MHC), then the theory suggests that you should not be able to choose something that smells nice to them based on your own preferences. You might, though, have better luck choosing for a close relation, because she would probably have an MHC similar to your own.

The research also raises the question of what so-called unisex perfumes are for. In any genetically successful love match, one of the partners ought to hate a unisex perfume. Perhaps, in a world of olfactory fakery, this is one tip for the wise. If your partner has a strange knack of being able to pick out all the right perfumes, this may not be a good sign at all. And that, of course, means that the best you can hope for this Christmas is that he has bought you a perfume that you absolutely hate.

Copyright © 2009 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

   

Naming scents can help you imagine them

Problems with odor detection is identification. Most people can readily identify common items when they can see them: oranges, nuts, cats. But when asked to identify an odor when there is no other information about the object, they are much less accurate.

read more | digg story

Naming scents can help you imagine them (and better appreciate wine?)

Naming scents can help you imagine them (and better appreciate wine?)

Category: Perception • Research • Taste
 P, by Dave Munger

In 2007 I received a really cool Christmas present that I still haven't used. It's a kit to help identify the various components of the aroma in a glass of wine. I haven't used it because I wanted to wait for the right occasion -- say, a party with some of my wine-loving friends. But I've also been secretly skeptical whether it would really help. The kit has tiny vials that are supposed to represent individual aromas: "oak," "hazelnut," "coffee," "cherry," and so on. What does identifying an aroma have to do with deciding whether you like a glass of wine?

As it turns out, more than you might think. Richard Stevenson, Trevor Case, and Mehmet Mahmut took a look at the history of research into aromas and found that in nearly every case, people have had great difficulty identifying and imagining them. If I ask you to visualize a physical object that you have seen before: a car, a giraffe, and so on, you would probably have little difficulty. But if I ask you to imagine a smell, even one you have recently experienced (perhaps you opened one of the little vials in my kit), you would find it much harder to do.

Another problem with odor detection is identification. Most people can readily identify common items when they can see them: oranges, nuts, cats. But when asked to identify an odor when there is no other information about the object, they are much less accurate.

Stevenson's team says that one of the primary reasons we have trouble identifying odors is that we usually don't have names for them. They trained 12 volunteers to recognize 15 different odors by having them sniff unlabeled vials of scented liquid. Other volunteers were exposed to the odors the same amount of time but not given their names, or trained on the names of the odors without being allowed to smell them. One week later, everyone was exposed to all the odors one more time, and given each odor's name (baby powder, lemon, shoe polish, oregano, etc.). Then they were asked to identify the odors. A fourth group, which didn't have any training, was tested in the same way. Here are the results:

The people who were trained on the names of the odors were significantly better at identifying them, compared to everyone else in the study. Being trained on the names of the odors in advance did help a little in terms of accuracy, but it didn't help at all when asked to imagine the odors. All the participants were asked to imagine each odor and then report on how well they could imagine the odors. Here are the results for the easiest odors (Vicks Vap-o-Rub, Baby Powder, Lemon):

Those who learned the names of each odor rated them as being significantly easier to imagine and significantly more vivid. The images were formed significantly faster as well. Being exposed to just the odors or the names didn't help people imagine the odors more vividly or faster.

So, returning to my wine-tasting example, this study suggests that being able to identify specific aromas with a label like "cinnamon" or "smoke" may improve my ability to imagine what a particular wine smells like. Later, when I'm in the store trying to decide what wine to buy, that memory could help me make a better purchase. I guess I should start calling up my friends to arrange a wine-smelling party!

Update: Over at BPS Research Digest, Christian has nearly simultaneously posted aboutdescribing wine and its impact on memory.

Stevenson, R.J., Case, T.I., Mahmut, M. (2007). Difficulty in evoking odor images: The role of odor naming Memory & Cognition, 35 (3), 578-589

Boyfriends odour can make the difference

Could you identify your boyfriend's sweat?

The more enamoured they are with a lover, the less likely people are to pick out the scent of another suitor• Article• Comments (10)• ZOSIA BIELSKIFrom Thursday's Globe and MailJanuary 22, 2009 at 10:19 AM ESTThe next frontier of sexual attraction lies in the armpit, according to researchers at McGill University who studied how body odour wafts through human relationships."The more in love you are with your boyfriend, the less able you are to identify the body odour of a male friend," said Johan Lundstrom, now an assistant professor of neuropsychology at Philadelphia's Monell Chemical Senses Center.The results, published in the journal Hormones and Behavior last month, support the "deflection theory," which argues that people in love are less aware of potential suitors around them.The research involved getting boyfriends, male friends and female friends of 20 women to sleep for one week in cotton T-shirts with breastfeeding pads sewn into the armpits. The pads soaked up their sweat, while the T-shirts protected the pads from "residual odours that might come from the outside," Dr. Lundstrom said.The 20 women, meanwhile, were asked to fill out a "passionate love scale" questionnaire to find out just how in love they were. The questionnaire asked participants to rate such soul-searching statements about their partners as: "I would feel deep despair if [blank] left me," and "I yearn to know all about [blank]."After the pads were well-soaked in sweat, each woman was asked to pick her lover's T-shirt out from two others worn by strangers. Women in love were able to pick out their boyfriend's body odour 5.2 out of seven tries. In separate tests, they were asked to pick out the male friend's shirt and the female friend's shirt. Those who rated more enamoured on the questionnaire had more trouble distinguishing their male friends' sweat from strangers' sweat.He is now investigating exactly what happens in women's brains as they process the aromas of partners, friends and strangers. This time, he's sending the women through a functional magnetic resonance imager and pumping the aromas from the breastfeeding pads into a tube that goes up their nose.So far, Dr. Lundstrom has found that strangers' odours activate the amygdala and insular cortex, often labelled as the brain's fear networks. When friends' smells floated up the women's noses, they stirred the retrosplenial cortex, which helps humans recall familiar information. And when lovers' scents wafted in, their reward centre was aroused. "It goes to show that hidden within our body odours we have important biological infor-mation," Dr. Lundstrom said.He noted that body odour can also help prevent distant relatives from hooking up, pointing to studies conducted on human leukocyte antigen (HLA) in the mid-1990s. Involved in kin recognition, HLA can be detected by smell."The more similar HLA you have, the more related you are. The studies showed that the more dissimilar HLA you have with someone, the more attractive you think that person is, and the more attractive his or her body odour smells. It's an inbreeding avoidance mechanism. It's been shown that this actually has an impact when you're selecting a partner."Finally, Dr. Lundstrom noted, "you should not stop showering" in hopes of attracting the right mate.


http://anotec.com.au

Humans And Mice Express The Same Olfactory Preferences

ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2009) — Humans and mice are attracted by the same odors. This has been revealed for the first time by a team of French researchers in the "Neurosciences sensorielles, comportement, cognition" Unit (CNRS / Université Lyon 1).

---

See also:

Health & Medicine

• Psychology Research
• Nervous System

Mind & Brain

• Perception
• Neuroscience

Plants & Animals

• Mice
• Rodents

Reference

• Olfaction
• Sensory neuron
• Sweating
• Saliva

Published on January 16, 2009 in the journal Plos One, their work confirms that olfactory preferences are not solely determined by experience or culture, but also by the structure of the odorant molecule. It will undoubtedly enable a clearer understanding of the neuronal mechanisms coding for olfactory perception. More immediately, it may be possible to predict human olfactory preferences based on those observed in the mouse.

In humans, odors strongly influence numerous compartments of daily living, such as sexual activity, social relations or food intake. Some are pleasant, others unpleasant, and induce attraction or repulsion, respectively. This positive or negative hedonic value of an odor is very markedly affected by the experience and culture of the individual. For example, if we consider camembert cheese, its odor attracts many French people but may be repulsive to an individual from another culture.

And what if olfactory preferences involved an innate characteristic? They would then be dictated by the chemical structure and physical properties (1) of the odorant molecule. To answer this question, Nathalie Mandairon and Moustafa Bensafi, CNRS scientists in Anne Didier's team in the "Neurosciences sensorielles, comportement, cognition" laboratory measured the olfactory preferences of humans and mice in response to a series of odors (2). And indeed, although the odor "value" is predetermined by the structure of the odorant molecule, the latter still needs to contain information that will induce choice. If this is the case, then humans and mice faced with the same odor should react in the same way.

In mice, the researchers used the time spent by the animal in exploring a given odor as their index of preference. The human subjects were asked to reach their decision and attribute a "score" ranging from 1 to 9, from the most unpleasant to the most pleasant. At the same time, the duration of sniffing, which tended to be longer when the odor was more pleasant, was also recorded.

The first conclusion was that humans and mice were attracted or repelled by the same odors. Geraniol, a floral odor, was one that was preferred by both species. In contrast, guaiacol, which corresponds to a smell of smoke or burning, was one of the least appreciated. This result demonstrates the conservation of olfactory preferences between these two mammalian species. In addition, the scientists confirmed that this hedonic judgment was closely linked to the structure of the odorant molecule, which thus partly predetermines our olfactory preferences.

No-one had previously suggested so strongly that the neuronal mechanisms coding for olfactory preference were situated at the initial levels of the processing of sensory information. Until now, it had been supposed that anything related to olfactory "judgments" was mainly processed at a high level within the integrative structures of the brain. These findings thus raise hopes of a clearer understanding of these mechanisms and how they function. In the shorter term, they suggest that the behavior of a mouse might predict human olfactory preferences, which could then open the way to practical applications; for example, in the agri-food industry.

Notes:

(1) Structure implies a series of physicochemical characteristics that describe the odorant molecule.

(2) As odorants are pure entities, they do not necessarily evoke a food.

New research from France reveals that humans and mice are attracted by the same odors. (Credit: iStockphoto/Dan Brandenburg)

---

Journal reference:

1. Mandairon et al. Humans and Mice Express Similar Olfactory Preferences. PLoS ONE, 2009; 4 (1): e4209 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004209

Adapted from materials provided by CNRS, via AlphaGalileo.

Email or share this story:   

Odor rooms make 'scents' for company in E. Hanover

Odor rooms make 'scents' for company in E. Hanover
New building houses Givaudan Fragrance

By Ellen S. Wilkowe • Daily Record •

In a room that exists solely to exhaust the scents of manufactured air fresheners, even the most stuffed-up noses can get a whiff.


In the state-of-the-art product-testing center at Givaudan Fragrance and Flavors' new headquarters in East Hanover, the company is testing the length of life of brand-name air-fresheners in order to back up the manufacturers' claim that their product truly lasts 30 to 60 days as advertised, said Lisa Lewis, Givaudan's creative director.
One flight up, scientists in white coats, surrounded by labeled brown bottles, compound fragranced concoctions to infuse into various home products. Think laundry detergent, Clorox, dishwashing soap, and yes, air fresheners such as Glade PlugIns.
(Oh, and it smells great in there.)
Call them super-secret scents, tested by professional perfumers in specially constructed, glass-enclosed odor rooms.
Scent is exactly what drives Givaudan Fragrance and Flavors, and a brand-new, 150,000-square-foot campus was necessity for Givaudan's Consumer Products Fragrance Creative division that now calls Ridgedale Avenue home.
"There are many noses here," said project manager Steve Andersen, of Montroy Andersen and DeMarco, the lead architectural firm behind the $28 million renovation. "Noses that know chemistry."
Formerly located in Teaneck, the creative division opened doors in East Hanover last month, following four years of well, sniffing out the perfect site.
Andersen first toured Givaudan's European offices to create their "science meets nature" standard as evidenced in the mostly glass-enclosed interior and its pistachio-green exterior.
The green theme continues with the application of sustainable and energy-efficient resources such as bamboo flooring, Low e-glass, fiber-optic lighting and an automated monitoring and control system to manage the building climate.
Four years in the making, the project first required landing a two-building site, or split plan, and then adhering to the stringent requirements involved in constructing impermeable odor booths, necessary for fragrance research.
"The HVAC systems can't contaminate each other," said Andersen.
The overhaul started more than a year ago and first involved skinning down the buildings, then installing new electrical, plumbing and HVAC systems. The Andersen team also connected the two buildings with a lobby atrium and constructed a front entrance.
Budget constraints in the building project itself resulted in Givaudan purchasing some of its own material, including lights, curtain walls, flooring, HVAC and glass, not to mention providing its own construction team. The completed campus is divided into two buildings -- a two-story structure for commercial and corporate and three-story for research and development -- conjoined by the lobby atrium, which will serve as the marketing area. The East Hanover site employs 200-210 employees in the science and corporate capacities.
The campus is peppered with general common areas and 11 glass-enclosed conference rooms, including a "floating conference room" that is seemingly suspended in mid-air.
The heartbeat of their super-secret research is the "more than 50 but less than 100 odor rooms," housed on the second floor of the research and development side.
The bank of airtight glass-walled rooms allow a perfumer to inhale a pure fragrance without outside odor contamination. The evaluator can waft the fragrance directly in the room or through a special porthole outside the room. A push of a button sucks out the odor and, after about 10 minutes, the room is ready for its next concoction, Lewis said.
To evaluate in true consumer capacity, laundry products are tested in an area with 30-40 washers and dryers, while a makeshift bathroom, complete with tub, toilet and sink, serves as a platform to assess toiletries and bathroom cleaners.

In addition to the Ridgedale Avenue site, Givaudan has two other locations in Morris County: Merry Lane in East Hanover and 300 Waterloo Valley Road in Mount Olive.
Ellen S. Wilkowe can be reached at (973) 428-6662 or ewilkowe@gannett.com.

MP kicking up a stink over tip odour

MP kicking up a stink over tip odour

1 reader has commented on this story.Click here to read their views.

AN MP HAS taken up the fight to clear the air around Winterton, Roxby and Burton-Upon-Stather of the stench of rotting rubbish.
The smells given off by the landfill site off the A1077, close to Roxby, led the Environment Agency to call a meeting with members of the public two weeks ago.
Now MP Ian Cawsey is urging his constituents to fill out a questionnaire about the effects of living with the odour.
The quiz, which is posted on his official website, asks participants how the issue affects them, whether they have filed a complaint and to describe the smell.
Mr Cawsey said: "I attended the public meeting with the Environment Agency to discuss the foul smells coming from the Roxby Landfill site."
TIN.adverts.addToArray('article-detail-impact-tile', 'AAMSZ=452x118');
"Action is being taken to get the operator of the site, Biffa, to get rid of these smells, but the agency requires as much local information as possible.
"Anyone who has been affected really should complete the online questionnaire."
Richard Brown (25), from Earlsgate, Winterton said: "Living where I do, right at the top of Winterton, we are closest to the tip so get the brunt of the whiffs – I actually think it's been a little better in the last week, but there's still a long way to go until it feels like we have clean air round here."
For the full story, buy today's Scunthorpe Telegraph.

Region takes second look at odour facility

Region takes second look at odour facility

AJ GROEN / METROLAND

Map data ©2009 Tele Atlas - Terms of Use

Map

Satellite

Hybrid

Tools

• Smaller Text | Larger Text
• Email this Article
• Print this Page
• Report Typo or Correction
• 

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:16 AM

BY REKA SZEKELY

DURHAM -- Region staff will take another look at a proposed sewage odour control facility (OCF) slated for Pickering after residents lobbied against the project.

The facility is part of the infrastructure necessary for an expansion of the York-Durham Sewage System, also known as the Big Pipe. A number of residents from the Cherrywood West subdivision in Pickering are upset because the OCF is to be located 300 metres south of their neighbourhood.

Their main concern is the potential smell if it doesn't function as well as engineers are predicting and the effect on their property values. They made their case to Pickering City Council, where they won support, and to the Region on Jan. 14.

"Potential buyers will figure out they would be living quite close to an odour control facility and who would want that?" said Grizelda Verbancic.

Pickering councillors Rick Johnson and Bonnie Littley shared the residents' concerns and Coun. Johnson asked staff to further investigate the facility, including the cost of locating it in York Region instead of Durham.

He said there are odour problems with an older OCF located in Pickering that also provides odour control for the Big Pipe. Region staff have said in the past that when it's working, there are no odours, but when the facility breaks down, there's no back-up system to prevent odours. The new facility would have such a system.

Still, Coun. Johnson said he doesn't blame residents for being skeptical that everything will work well.

"We have existing problems with the existing facility that's not been corrected and now we're moving on to another facility."

Coun. Littley echoed residents in suggesting the plant be built in York instead.

"It's their sewage and it's their pipe and it's their odour, so I think they should take it on their side."

John Presta, the Region's director of environmental services, said Pickering is technically the most practical place to put the OCF since that's where most of the odours will be generated because there will be drops in the pipes due to geography.

"Putting an odour-control facility up there in York doesn't make practical sense," he said. Presta noted, however, it would be technically possible to build it in York.

Devi Gopalan, who lives about three kilometres from the proposed OCF site, at the meeting said she doesn't feel like her concerns have been adequately addressed so far. She approved of the committee's action.

"I think it was amazing how the committee pushed for further answers."

York and Durham regions have already submitted the environmental assessment for the Big Pipe extension, including the OCF, and public comments on the EA are due Jan. 23. Works commissioner Cliff Curtis predicts since residents have expressed their opposition, the Ministry of the Environment will ask the two sides to sit down and try to work out a compromise.